The Update: Why We See More Complaints Than Praise

That PvP should be 100% skill based at all times without worrying about forced gear differences.

Best case scenario? All tools available from start. I'd settle for it all being available once you've beaten PvE once (I still think it is unnecessary).

PvP Guild Wars is very skillful once the action begins. Before the action begins, we should all have complete access to any tools we feel adds to our strategy and tactics to display our skill in battle or the skill of one is dwarfed by the system. Gear and full access to skills shouldn't be more than a second thought for serious competitive play.

Yes, and the all important need for them to drop the Attribute Refund Point requirement when in town.

I'd settle for prices that are 1/10th of what's required now. Still, the whole approach is uneeded in a serious competitive activity.


Gear unlocking is a by-product of your dwarfed skill used in battle, it is not a sign of skill in of itself. Me and my opponent, on the same level playing field with access to the same tools, going toe to toe with me coming out on top... that's the display of skill I'm talking about, and that's the focus of pure skill-based play mechanics used in almost all competitive activities except Guild Wars PvP.

There are LOADS of new PvP characters joining every day buddy.

Chances are the majority of your battles ARE with people on the same boat as you, just trying to get some faction.

Did you know that in the Northeast USA there is a big Type 1 (Almost all cards available, up to $1k for 1 card) scene. Want to know one reason why it is popular? They allow 'proxies', or fake cards. This allows people who do not have access to the several hundred dollar cards to play with the competitive designs they make. Everyone, even those who don't use the proxies, enjoy this rule because it makes the competition tougher. Therefore, the people who own the cards arn't playing against 'Badjank.deck' and instant winning just because of what they own. Instead, they allowed to have a competition that tests their playskill and deck building.

Magic is an almost EXACT correlation to GW, as there are 3 important factors, playskill, creating your deck/build of 8 players, and aquiring the cards/items/skills you need to execute your design. Almost everyone agrees that the third is superfluous, and would rather it be done away with. In MTG its obvious why it exists, Wizards needs to make money to support the game. However in Guild Wars, we already paid our $50. The game makers get no direct benefit from making us unlock skills/items.

I can tell you honestly that I have played in No proxy vs 75 proxy (The entire deck) tournaments. The 75 proxy was far more fun as I got to see far more strong and diverse decks (rather than many people playing the few 'budget' decks that very often just lose) and everyone felt it was very fair.

I can say I like this update, as its better than nothing, but I REALLY think UAS/UAR is the answer.

Okay, let's examine your Tennis analogy then, since you're now so eager to toss aside your Chess analogy (interestingly enough, after it's been chipped away at to the point of being utterly irrelevant).

Regardless of what Nike or Adidas commercials say, there are definite advantages to certain types of footwear in athletics. The more support a shoe has, the easier it will be to play in it. There will be less strain on the heel, various tendons, etc...any doctor can tell you that. So that's your first mistake in assuming that "all shoes are created equal," because they're not. Not by a longshot. Even as we have this discussion right now, right this very second, there are engineers in the world designing a better tennis shoe.

And to claim that everyone has great gear from the get-go would be outright ignoring the novice high school tennis player who doesn't have access to the total top-of-the-line equipment that Venus or Serena Williams do. The difference in quality of the equipment of a high school tennis team and that of a multi-billion dollar tennis star is almost too wide to even quantify, and no amount of conjecturing on your part is going to magically transform high school equipment into the sports equivalent of ruby slippers. Simple as that.

You want to say that every single tennis player has access to the exact same quality equipment from the start? Are you aware of what a high school's sports budget looks like compared to Venus or Serena Williams'?

But I won't completely destroy what you're saying, because I'm sure high school tennis teams being compared to professional athletes isn't what you had in mind originally anyway, so I'll just compare high school tennis teams to each other, and nothing will change: people can try extremely hard to "level the playing field" in high school sports, but there's always going to be a difference in the quality of equipment, and also a difference in the ease and means of acquiring equipment.

So are you referring to your tennis arguments like what I quoted above? You're making sloppy analogies and then turning right around and trying to declare them to be cogent arguments.

Did you want to refer me to your football points...which are so extreme and absurdly unrealistic that nobody can possibly take them remotely seriously?

C'mon, man, be sensible here. Your points aren't points at all; they're just nonsensical and unrelated ramblings.

and then add steroids to the mix also which though generally outlawed are still ever-present through non-outlawed drugs giving similar effects.

This is the best argument for UAS/R I've heard in a long, long time.

The only problem is then that PvE characters who use their PvE characters in PvP might feel cheated because the PvP players they face in the arenas won't have worked nearly as hard to get the skills/runes/elites as they did. And since this is supposed to be a game where PvE and PvP intertwine, we just can't have that. So what, then all players are supposed to use reserve one or two of their spots for PvP characters? Why would someone limit himself by making a character that can only go into PvP, if they like both? I don't know about you, but I want all my 4 slots for PvE characters, and then I'll use those in PvP. That way I can get the best of both worlds.

UAS/R wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for one group of people.

Those who enjoy both PvE and PvP. I myself enjoy both. And we're the ones who get screwed by it. If we tried to bring our PvE characters into PvP we'd be outmatched because our PvE characters had to work for their gear. If we created PvP characters we'd be limited in a sense that we wouldn't be able to use the character in both.

And since I'm sure Anet would rather see people play both PvE and PvP, they're not giving out the UAS/R, as to make it fair for people who like the whole game.

If it was JUST PvP players, and JUST PvE players, no problem would arise from UAS/R. Unfortunately that's not the case.

"They can make it so that when you enter a PvP staging area, you temporarily recieve all skills, runes, and weapon upgrades for the matches you participate in, and when you leave the staging area, you lose the skills, runes, and weapon upgrades you didn't have already." -Quintus (1st Page)

Go ahead and tell me if you think that this is a bad idea. I can take it.

I remember reading over that, actually. And I really liked the idea at the time, I still do. I just wonder how difficult it would be to implement. That seems like a bit of a hassle 'eh?

If they could implement that, I think it'd definately fix the problem, I like to play both PvE and PvP. So to be able to have all PvE characters, and still have PvP available materials when I enter a PvP zone, would be great.

That's a good idea, it was suggested in another thread a long while ago as well. I'm just not sure if they could implement it or not.

Cheers.

Yeah, I was thinking that when I wrote it, too, but Anet has shown that they have amazing flexebility with updating their game. So I won't give up hope.

The reason you see more negative posts is that human nature favors whining. If someone enjoys something, they'll maybe say it once: "hey this update is great!". No one is gonna make multiple topics saying "Wow, love the update".

On the other hand, there are PLENTY of whiners who have no problem spamming every thread with the same complaint as well as making multiple threads on the same subject. It's not necessarily a knock against people who dislike the update but rather an observation on human nature in general. We seem to repeatedly whine more than we repeatedly praise.

Lol, WHAT!? I only mentioned a factual statement of my infrequent use of an activity, but was in no way commenting on its validity (it's ALL still very valid).

Chess remains VERY much analogous. As does Checkers. As does Go Fish. As does Dodge Ball. As does playing a 2-year old in friggin' Peek-a-Boo. What, the baby has to earn her way into using both hands and at least one eye by not drooling for five hours first? Too funny!

No serious competition adds laborious nonsense just to achieve what's needed to begin on an equal level with your opponent. Rarely do I literally roll on the floor when laughing, but with your claims of imaginary logic victories, I may have to start doing just that. ROFL!

And the "tennis destruction" post falls on its face completely. As I've been saying, the professional tennis league does NOT force the players to do crazy acts of endurance just to access top equipment. Nothing keeps anyone from accessing the stuff they need but their OWN choice for not getting it in a professional, serious environment. Even your choice to bring up high schoolers is nonsense because the system deoesn't use its rules to prevent THEM from getting some $300 pair of shoes either.

If YOU choose not to use a Superior Vigor Rune and any Elite in UAS/UAR system, you have no one to blame but yourself if your win ratio isn't very high. But in the current system, feel free to complain that before you can fully exhibit pure skill in defeating your opponent on an equalized basis, you must first play the equivalent of 500 full tennis matches, 1,000 games of chess, or 1,000,000 games of peek-a-boo. Only then does the SYSTEM allow you to fully gear up with what you need for competition.

Other video games that have single and multi-player components get along fine with their inherent "UAS" system. When you buy Half-Life 2, just because you haven't unlocked the Gravity Gun in the single player game does not prevent you from having it (and all weapons) in the PvP game. The enjoyment of playing either mode is in no way diminished.

I loved PvE. I'm really looking forward to the expansions and will play them just as fully as I did the adventures we have so far. But it serves a different purpose that shouldn't interfere with PvP in the way competition is meant to be played. I don't need to put handcuffs on one system just to get more enjoyment from the other. They can give more non-PvP rewards for playing PvE if you need a reason to play it, but I enjoy it just for the sake of playing cooperatively in a hack 'n slash environment.

Since PvP and PvE are exciting for separate reasons, there's no reason why one should have to go through PvE play mechanics (slowly unlocking) just to have a normal PvP experience. I'd say the same if I were forced into PvP play mechaics for PvE (full access to everything in Pre-Ascalon on forward).

It's a step in the right direction... that's about all that matters right now.

I like it! I prefer using my PvE character all the time anyway. The only restriction is that you don't have access to other primaries, but that's why pure PvP is there. Either that or ascend a new character. We'd need more slots, but it is workable.

That would be an awesome reward.... after you ascend, you are able to have full UAS/UAR only when playing PvP. Absolutely brilliant idea. You pick your favorite primary and work hard through PvE... that proves you didn't get everything easy. You are allowed a lot of stuff in future added PvE zones, but only what you unlock. In PvP, you get it all so everyone's competing on the same starting level with their chosen primaries, and you can switch secondaries at any time.

If you want to switch primaries, go to pure PvP-only mode and construct them... but use the Faction points to unlock all the gear (I still hate this, but a 50% - 90% reduction in prces would be cool). The other choice is to ascend with another primary, which I personally would consider choosing since I do like PvE. Either way, you have a straight forward way to UAS/UAR that doesn't stomp on the pleas of PvE peeps who say you have to "earn" it some how. As an added bonus, give more Faction or Experience points to people who play their main in the single non-UAS/UAR PvP arena.

Quintus, when you get a chance, please put this idea up in its own thread in the Suggestion Forum as the best compromise solution to PvP vs. PvE. Does anyone see any flaws in his plan? Every play type has value and a purpose, but pure skill competition is still very much accessible without hundreds of man hours invested.

Once you post it, it's not really your thread anymore. It's free! =)

Seriously, it belongs to the community, and the moderators are doing what's best for the community. That said, the idea of temporary bans is fine too.

As an avid pvper, I think the new patch is a ray of light from anet. I'm very pleased they are taking steps towards the fair treatment of pvp players. Currently my only criticisms of the patch are that tombs and arena play dont tend to reward players enough to realistically enable players to gain unlocks in a reasonable amount of time.

GvG is fine though, as most people agree.

You don't have kids, do you?

Yeah. They earn it. They earn it by practicing nine or ten hours a day. At first, all they can do is wiggle. After a few weeks, they might be able to hold their heads up. After a couple of months, they 'unlock' coordinated use of their hands. It's considered a landmark day in the life of a parent when the baby can actually hold their own bottle.

Getting to a point where they laugh when you're playing 'Peek-a-boo' with them is something that takes a kid between four and eight months of intensive 'grinding' at the use of their muscles and their mind, enough to 'unlock' non-elementary emotional responses.

You were doing okay with the sports analogies. The 'baby' analogy really doesn't work, though: babies go through the most intensive unlocking grind imaginable.

—Siran Dunmorgan

P. S. I'm still interested to hear your analysis of my comments on—continuing the sports analogies—the difference between football as played by the player vs. football as played by the owner.

There are 'sports' that draw different levels of distinction between game and metagame:

• The NASCAR Association, for example, goes out of their way to ensure that there are as few differences between the cars and pit crew quality as possible, so that winning is principally a matter of driver skill.

• Formula One racing is principally a sport of engineering team vs. engineering team, and only secondarily about driver vs. driver.

• America's Cup yacht racing is almost all about engineering.

This has an interesting effect, by the way: F1 and America's Cup carry considerably more international prestige, but NASCAR races are more exciting to watch, and—I can only imagine—to drive in.

P.P.S What is your perspective on 'Junkyard Wars' as a competitive activity? That's another possible—and rather apt—comparison to Guild Wars.

—SD

i don't understand why anet is INTEGRATING PvE with PvP when there needs to be more SEPERATION. what all the PvE players want to do is grind/farm (aka WoW) and the economy keeps getting minimized through recent patches. and what all the PvP players want is 'all unlock' so they can PvP right away without the hassle of PvE (aka Warcraft 3). what anet tried to do is mix warcraft 3 with world of warcraft thinking it'd be a cash cow but actually turning into a horrible mess. the simple solution here is to just seperate PvP and PvE and give each side what they want.

No, here's what you don't get: Chess is not a valid point here. You're comparing apples to oranges when you attempt to compare GW to Chess, and I've shown you why numerous times.

Bull****. Keep believing that it is--but it isn't. Magic: the Gathering is analogous. Chess is not.

Bull.

Bull.

Bull.

Siran already showed you how your sarcasm was misplaced there.

You can insert annoying references to annoying netspeak catchphrases. Good for you. Nobody cares.

Please. Their "OWN choice"? So an entry level tennis player chooses to not use the very best equipment that may very well be outside their price range--or at least unavailable to them at that point in time? Do all tennis players (regardless of whether they're Serena Williams or Average Joe) have the funds available to get the same caliber personal trainers?

Yeah, we'd like things to be equal...but things aren't equal.

And what kinds of crazy acts of endurance in GW could you possibly be indirectly referring to? Is it the addition of PvPers being able to spend time PvPing to unlock things for PvP builds? What a crime. Regaining full refund points after 6k xp? Like I said before, who gives a ****? I find it hard to believe that with all the high-level/end-game content available, gaining 6k xp is such a hard thing to do.

Plus, we now have xp multiplier scrolls for sale in various places, so with a Level 20, you can access pretty much anywhere, you can buy a few of those Triple XP scrolls, so don't complain to us that it's so impossible for you to gain 6k xp. If anything, it's easier than it ever was, especially for Level 20s.

School budgets. Sports budgets. It doesn't outright require students to win X amount of games or achieve X amount of acclaim, but more successful teams get more funding. Don't tell me it's nonsense...because there are definite rules in-place there. Any high schooler will tell you that. Go and talk to them before making such outrageous, blanket statements like "Everything is accessible. Nobody is forcing them to go on a rewards treadmill!" Because they'll tell you that more often than not, they feel like they're on a treadmill--and a lot of this is due to the school administration being bureaucrats.

Again, Chess is irrelevant. Tennis is irrelevant because you're trying to make it seem like Tennis is entirely bereft of any "imbalance," which is wholly false. Bringing in Peek-A-Boo is a complete stretch and a waste of our time. You're pulling analogies out of your ass, but you don't see that.

You're operating under some misconception that "life [outside of GW] is fair." It's not. In 99% of all that we do in our lives, it won't be fair, professional, semi-professional, high school sports included. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. Athletes are not created equal. All tennis shoes are not created equal. All school/sports budgets are not created equal.

And you're right. If I don't choose to use a Superior Vigor in an UAS/UAR system, that's my fault.

But I don't see what that has to do with what you've been saying here, because you've been trying to justify your argument by bringing in boardgames and other sports, pointing to how "balanced" they are because of an (supposed) "instant" accessibility to skills, abilities, equipment, etc, but the critical flaw in your argument is that your analogies are pointless. Chess has absolutely no bearing on this argument, because Chess has absolutely no bearing on the fundamental game design of GW. Tennis (in how you're using it) has absolutely no bearing here, because everyone does not immediately have access to the best of everything, even though you keep thinking they do.

Keep "laughing" at me. Go ahead. I don't care. But you need to realize that nothing of what you've been saying about "real life" is accurate on any substantial and meaningful level. You jab at me, claiming I've wrongly declared any logical victory here...but when you're not using any real, substantial logic in the first place, who's actually being illogical? You're trying to tell us that all tennis players from all walks of life have access to the same equipment from the get-go, but we know that's false.

And I don't understand why it has to be about 'sides'.

What I see ArenaNet having done with Guild Wars is—building from your comparison—having integrated Warcraft III with World of Warcraft by making resource collection and research—which normally occur within the context of a single match in Warcraft III something that occurs over a persistent, ongoing 'match' with variable, multiple opponents from the single-character perspective of World of Warcraft.

What they've effectively done is integrated RTS and FPS gaming: if you look at the entire span of Guild Wars as a single session of an RTS game, the guiding philosophy behind 'unlocking' is obvious: it's exactly like 'research' in the RTS context.

I applaud the designers for taking this larger view, and I hope that we can all come to a more complete understanding of this new incarnation of computer gaming. It doesn't have to be about 'sides'.

—Siran Dunmorgan

I couldn't agree with Siren more.

The long and the short of it is that unfortunatly for some, it IS two games. The PvE part of the game obviously got the most attention and promotion, so therefore it's the most developed. It is also more deep, but that is just based on the type (pve vs pvp)

PvP is secondary, like it or not. They sold the game based on PvE 75% and PvP 25%. How much time do you think they will spend on NEW PvE content for the next chapter? My guess is 75% more than they will on PvP.

As far as analogies are concerned, the ONLY game you can compare this to is Magic:the Gathering.

Just like in MtG the more/better cards you have the MORE you are going to win. The skill only comes in play when the draw is equal.

Too many people believe they were sold a game based 100% on skill, when what was promoted was skill OVER grinding, which can be the case.

The game is INCOMPARABLE to chess or even peek-a-boo because those are ONLY skill games, because each player has the same tools to start with.

PvP is just as important. You're an ignorant fool to think it isn't.

The class balance has been intricately worked out.

I don't even bother to read the rest of your post, coz even the first sentence sounds idiotic.

Malchiel, considering the fact that my first sentence had nothing to do with whether or not PvP was as important, I have to assume that you read past the first sentence... In fact my second sentence wasn't either, so I know as a fact you read at least three of my sentences, and I would have to assume, the rest of the post as well!

So, I would have to say your post is the one who sounds idiotic.

Thanks for trying to add to the discussion. Next time try and add your own opinion, thoughts or ideas to the forum so that we may all discuss.

Remember the point here is to share, not to say one person is right or wrong!

*Disclaimer - I am not one to flame, but come on, that was ridiculous!

Amazing. How anyone can deny an obvious truth is beyond me. OK, in the interest of logical charity, I'll try again to say the exact same thing in a different way. Every single activity I have listed involve participation from individuals, and in a serious competitive environment, each individual has two major forces that determines what his ceiling is when it comes to how prepared he is towards beating his opponents.

The first major force is the person himself. Whether its abilities, income, eye-hand coordination, determination level, experience learned, commitment to practice, teamwork attitude, tactics used, skills developed, strategy prepared.... you get the idea. These are all related to each other because the primary influence on how they all improve, stagnate or get worse is on the back of the person who is involved. Yes, other things can affect it, but none moreso than the person himself.

The second major force is the competitive system under which he performs his craft, and the rules that govern everyone involved. It is here where Arena.net's system differs from 99.999% of competitive activities. While limits and maximum allowed levels of equipment/gear quality are often set within the rules to keep competition fair for all.... the rules of the system itself does NOT prevent an individual from participating with the best gear/equipment available that others are allowed to use.

Here is where all of those counter-points to my analogies consistently fall apart. In serious competition, what is preventing a player from making use of the top gear needed to succeed in all my examples? The current state of affairs with the participant (Force A), or the rigid rules of the governing system (Force B - i.e Arena.net, NBA, WTA, etc)? You can go back and read any of our previous posts... mine's or others. I have been arguing from this perspective all along. Arena.net is doing a disservice to skillful competition by imposing rules that staggers the players' ability to win by limiting access to important gear.

It is the RULES that keep a skillful player from succeeding who needs a Superior Swordsmanship, Superior Vigor, Superior Absorption, and a dozen elites just to have a fair chance against a team all maxed out. These are items and gear... wits, skill, strategy and talent alone ARE NOT ENOUGH. The winner, unlike all the other examples mentioned, is determined by the person who jumped through more acquisition hoops imposed by the RULES, instead of other competitive activities where you acquire what you need based on YOUR personal situation.

Whether its practice, income, experience, physical development, or what have you, the rules of any competitive system does not prevent one from getting what they need to equally compete with those who are already stocked full:

- In tennis, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed gear before first winning 500 matches. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In chess, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed pieces before first winning 500 matches. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In basketball, the rules don't prevent one from getting needed gear unless he first makes 10,000 three point shots. Arena.net's system unfortunately does this. The ability to have the gear from the start lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

- In Peek-a-Boo, the rules don't prevent one from getting one from using their eyes and hands unless she first goes through 5 hours of drool free playtime. Arena.net's system unfortunately does. The ability to do or not do so lies with the participant, not the rules of the system.

THIS has been the only context under which I've made my analogies. In competitive activities, the system only hurts skillful contests when they step in and impose rules that prevent the pure, skillful talents of the individuals from being enough to succeed. You can't possibly ignore that this is the case here, even if you think it is a good thing. PvE play mechanics of earning things is anti-skillful competition in any PvP activity, and it shouldn't be that way.

Now, before anyone attempts to rebutt the unrebuttable, do NOT try to change the premise of the point I made and then proceed to argue against what you make up. Any comparison I made between GW and a sport or activity has been placed in its proper and specific context. I've shown what these competitive contests have in common ONLY as it relates to participants' access to what they need to succeed:

Is the lack of access to what gear/equipment others are succeeding with the fault of the individual player's choice/status? Or is the lack of access the fault of the system's imposed rules?

In serious competition, it should NEVER be the latter. The rules should never force one to put in hundreds of hours to come into a competitive activity with the gear you need to succeed. "The game is designed to reward player skill and teamwork, not time spent playing..." Where did I come up with this last quote? FROM ARENA.NET'S OWN WEBSITE. Ahh, if only it were completely true.

What better thread to put this in than here...

It hasn't been on purpose, but since the patch I haven't taken the time to come here and read what the 'community as a whole' has to say about the recent changes to PvP. Instead, I've tested it out myself, talked to friends in-game, and seen how people are handling the faction points while actually getting used to this change. I heard one negative remark after talking and listening to everyone I came in contact with in-game over the last couple of days, and the vast majority of people who actually knew what the faction system is there for said they were extremely pleased with the change.

I come here to this forum to see what is said, and I'm amazed to see that there are various threads and posts saying that the changes make it worse than what it was before, and of course various other complaints much like what are constantly mentioned by a select group of people.

I guess this is the nature of some community forums though... the loudest ones tend to get the most attention. But remember that the community is huge, and your narrow elitist view of how this game has to be in order to be even remotely enjoyable is not the only way of looking at this game. This isn't directed at any one person, just something to think about for those who are trying to have fun in this game and want to be a welcome addition to this community. Nobody likes someone who only has negative things to say, and it is beyond me why some of you would continue to play the game and make posts here when you feel the way you do... immaturity and high levels of boredom are the only reasons I see for it.

Ok now I see your argument. I think your missing something here though. In chess/checkers/tennis, it's up to the PLAYER to sit down with the required equipment to play. Certainly the player with the better gear has the better edge....

But why does that person have better gear? Because for whatever reason they bought it. It wasn't the rules of the system that gave it to them after they played 100 games.

Same thing happens here... If you want to get the best gear you have to buy it. It's NOT A GRIND, because you can get those skills/runes faster with better abilities. If you are able to strategize and plan better... youll get there faster.. therefore it's NOT a grind.

Not once have they said you can only get Equipment A, but spending X amout of time in game... it's ALL skill based. I've seen lvl 14 warriors take out things that lvl 20 ones get stuck on... the better player wins.

Besides, if you dont like the system dont play. it's not up to Anet to come up with a system that corresponds with tennis/chess/peek-a-boo.

You see more negative comments on the boards because everyone who likes the patch is too busy playing and having their fun to argue with the people who dont like the patch.

Hmm... thinking of the forums as a place where mainly the fed-up hardline elitist gamer fundamentalist comes to gripe about how the world isn't exactly how they want it to be... could be true. These people have a very narrow viewpoint of how the world should be and think that everyone else should agree with them or go to hell. But would you say they are "in their last throws"? I'm not that optimistic about the situation... I think it will be a long time before we are finally rid of them for good. I see progress though .

Agreed, any person who thinks that skill is the most important thing in a competitive situation has issues. Team-based sports/games - which Guild Wars is - is fundamentally a cooperative event where each member regardless of his or her skill is part of the whole. True, basic, fundamental skills are essential for each member but without coordination, communication, and trust, no team can succeed. The sports pages are filled daily with stories of teams like the San Antonio Spurs, the New England Patriots, and the Boston Red Sox, who don't avow to the theory that the most skillfull athletes win championships.

What does that have to do with the fact that the rules of the system didn't force those teams to play with lesser quality gear than other teams? They won their championships based on their skills, strategies and tactics. League-imposed restrictions that keep you from playing with gear of competitive quality than the competition does not exist anywhere except Guild Wars PvP. I explained:

All those teams won because of excelling in 'Force A', which they control. Any team that lost did NOT lose due to unnecessary influence by 'Force B', which the powers-that-be control. So should it be with GW PvP; let the PLAYERS determine how they win. Clear?

"The game is designed to reward player skill and teamwork, not time spent playing"

So you're telling me that this new system doesn't make you do EXACTLY what this says? You get REWARDED for using your SKILL and TEAMWORK to win using what they give you at the beginning.

To me, this is new system fits in with that quote from Anet to the dot.

Arredondo I've just got to say this. All your sports comparisons are in no way related to GW. And don't even THINK about comparing Half-Life 2, an FPS game, to GW. If you want an FPS game, go play something else.

I mean how the hell can you even think tennis is in any way related to GW? Tennis is one on one, or two vs two in some cases. GW is at least 4vs4, there are many more factors to take into account while playing than in "tennis". One is a sport---which I'll add, takes time and practice to get good at. The other is an online PC game. Just forget about your comparisons because even when they might somehow be reasonable you always phrase it incorrectly. As we've had pointed out by several members here.

And people quit talking about "sides" here, like it's ONLY pure PvP and pure PvE people playing the game. Most of us enjoy BOTH every now and then. And the ONLY way a UAS/R would work in any sense then would be to implement Quintus' suggestion. Otherwise, UAS/R just won't work.

Either you have never played a team sport or are just arguing a senseless issue for the sake of argument. Generally speaking (yes, there are exceptions) all athletes who enter the pro environment are equal in skill. It is their ability to execute well as a team that makes the difference in critical situations. I'm assuming (maybe I shouldn't after seeing these inane posts) that most people who play GW have fundamental skills like eye-sight coordination, intelligence, and a strategic sense. I have seen as have many that the basic skill/equipment/rune set is "fair enough". I have been beaten in the arena and tombs often enough by this "basic" set. Obviously, most people want better. So to them Anet has offered a very reasonable awards system - not that it was ever needed. So what is the problem? Is it one of insecurity? We all have access to the "equal" equipment/skills/runes that you are forever mentioning. Please ask Peyton Manning (you do know who he is, right?) how much skill and/or proper equipment he needs to win a championship. Get it?

We don't have access to the equal equipment/skills/runes, and I don't see how you could even argue that. People with more time will have more runes and items, casual players are at a disadvantage in the current system. I don't see why implementing a grind is even necessary in a game without a monthly fee, what does ANET stand to gain by making it so casual players won't be able to have access to all the game has to offer in anywhere near the same time a hardcore player does?

I'd like to step back from arredondo's argument about skill and leave skill entirely out of the equation for a moment. Right now, unlocking every skill in the game requires a massive time investment that some people just cannot make, and casual players will probably still be unlocking skills by the time the expansion comes out. Do you think that they deserve to have less choice when it comes to playing their PvP characters because they can't invest the same time into the game someone with a ton of free time can?

Right now advancement is painfully slow for myself and probably many others. Sure, I may have a fairly wide selection of skills for my primary character's classes, but if I want to play classes other than my primary two and try out a new build, I'm out of luck. Sure, I could play through the game two more times or respec my secondary class and grind for skill points, but both of those are extremely tedious methods of unlocking skills. I just can't see why there isn't an option of unlocking things faster, considering that it ANET gets no benefits from having such slow progress.

The confusion that the recent responders have is in the use of the word "skill". In Guild Wars, skill has two meanings when in every other contest skill has one meaning. Guild Wars:

Skill (1) - a special action that you can put on your skill bar (Energy Tap, Obsidian Flesh, Malaise, etc.)

Skill (2) - the individually developed abilities that allows one player to excel in game play (eye-hand coordination, strategic planning, dominatiting tactics, etc.)

In nearly all, if not all, of my references to skill, I am talking ONLY of a player's skill #2 as it relates to his ability to beat his opponents. Skill #1 is GEAR, an item needed for battle and nothing more. I can't bring all my gear in, but I should have a choice of WHAT gear I can bring without system imposed rules that allow all choices for some (based on hours invested), but not all. Guild Wars is the only serious competitive activity with this imposed restriction.

As I understand it, Arredondo is pointing out two things:

First, that he is not comfortable with—or, possibly, does not understand— the concept of explicit n-tier metagaming.

Second, that he believes that ArenaNet has in some sense abandoned its stated principles by implementing a game in which time spent is more important—more of a determining factor, if you will—than skill.

I'm going to try to analyze that a bit more, so that we can be certain that we know whereof we speak:

From the perspective of the character involved in a PvP match, there are three games: the present game in the sense of PvP battle. The first-tier metagame, representing the acquisition of the skills and equipment by means of which the battle is carried out, and the second-tier metagame, containing the environment in which the player functions, i.e. the real world.

As far as I can determine, Arredondo does not believe that what I refer to as the second-tier metagame is part of the game at all, because it lies outside the scope of the defined rules of the game.

For example, I believe that he would claim that the engineering differences between Formula One race cars are irrelevant to his argument because the rules of conduct of a Grand Prix race do not address matters of engineering, i.e., a driver is not required to perform a certain action or number of actions in order to have better wheels added to his car.

That this does in fact hold true for the engineering team responsible for building and maintaining the car is irrelevant, Arredondo would argue, because it is not a factor involved in the conduct of the race itself, or in the rules of the Formula One commission.

By defining the first-tier metagame—with respect to PvP battle—to take place in the virtual world rather than the real world, ArenaNet has placed the first-tier metagame in scope of 'the rules', just as if the F1 racing commission were to begin mandating distinctions between engineering teams. That the commission might only be recognizing distinctions that already exist is, again, irrelevant; the question is whether or not they were in scope of the explicit rules.

He has consistently shrugged off the assertion that, essentially, all games involve preparatory grind with the counterassertion that they do not explicitly codify this fact in their rules.

Well, I agree: they don't.

Welcome to the new world, where functions that once were a part of the real world have moved into the virtual. Expect to see more of this, as the scope of online environments continues to expand and interpenetrate the real world.

Now, with respect to his second point, the question of whether ArenaNet has been deceitful in asserting that 'skill > time spent', I don't actually believe there is any doubt: a PUG of unskilled players with who have been playing the game continuously since release will still fall before a team of n0 or Fianna armed only with 'template' characters.

The issue that Arredondo actually means to address is that, given a series of matches between two top guilds—I select n0 and the Fianna for this example—who are otherwise of equivalent skill, the team with the better equipment will prove victorious somewhat more often than the team with less, where completely even levels of skill and equipment would tend to produce a 1:1 win:loss ratio.

For myself, I would assert that skill is still the determining factor—but I'm willing to work with Arredondo's assumptions.

However, I refer again to the metagame: I believe that ArenaNet's assertion that 'skill > time spent' is inclusive of the first-tier metagame, as well as of PvP battle.

Arredondo and those like him are not willing to accept the first-tier meta-game as part of the game, and so believe that a means of removing the first-tier metagame entirely, i.e., an 'unlock all' button, is the correct solution to the game's woes, and believe that by implementing an explicit first-tier meta-game—as opposed to leaving the meta-game entirely in the real world, as is the case with most competitive games—ArenaNet has done a disservice to adherents of Guild Wars competitive play.

For myself, I would rather that Guild Wars included even higher order meta-games, such as a more fully realized campaign system whereby it were possible to actually wage war—as opposed to a series of stylized skirmishes—between Guilds within the explicit rules of the game.

—Siran Dunmorgan

P.S. Incidentally, I don't believe that Arredondo is an idiot, nor well-described by any of perjoratives that have been applied to him in this thread. Indeed, I would suggest that he has been remarkably patient with his detractors.

casual players dont figure into this arguement at all to begin with as they will never be top guild competitors no matter how well equipped.

THEY DONT HAVE THE PRACTICE TIME TO BE COMPETITIVE

LEAVE THE TRULY CASUAL PLAYER OUT

So what you are saying is basically "SCREW THE CASUAL PLAYERS THEY DON'T MATTER"?

As well thought out as that post was, I'm amazed at how far it misses the mark. Your summary of my stated (and repeated ) position is incorrect. The rules of any cometition should not force activity or time spent as a condition towards acquiring any gear, simple and plain.

I say again, that I draw from YEARS of competitive experience in sports, videogames, and other activities to make my main point: Arena.net's system in PvP goes against the goal of pure skillful competition. Their rules impose acquisition standards on someone before he has access to desired gear that other competitiors have access to.

The outcome is influenced (NOT determined) by forces outside the scope of the player involved and is instead in the hands of the system he participates in. One may overcome that influence and be victorious. The influence may be great or slight. But nowhere but Guild Wars PvP does that influence from the competitive system exist.

That is not how serious competition works anywhere except Arena.net. Just being different is nowhere near an excuse for just being wrong. The competitive system is always set up to allow all participants to come to the starting line with whatever is legal for that activity. If somnething is legal, it is up to you to get the best out of it withOUT influence from arbitrary acquisition rules imposed by the competitive system in place.

Let's look at specifics of where you went wrong:

Ok, incomplete, but I'll go along with this perspective for now.

Wrong. I've consistently said that any activity (or grind as you put it) should be SELF-imposed, not league mandated as a qualifier, to access the gear that your competitiors have. BIG difference.

In this 'first-tier' metagame you describe, we both can agree that in all contests, the competitors must come to the field, track, game, whatever... well-prepared, right? OK, what keeps one from being as prepared as their opponents? No matter what you name, I've been saying that if you aren't prepared for what comes at you, it should be YOUR fault alone, with no influence from rules that inherently forces those that are allowed to have and those that are not allowed to have to compete together.

If I know that my opponent is going to come with an all Air Ele/Monk team, I should be at fault for not stocking up on anti-elemental armor or the Mantra of Lightning stance for my Mesmer (or any other gear for a strat that I decide will work). It should not be determined by the rules of the system that we all participate in, which keeps me from accessing this gear because I haven't jumped through enough hoops for the "league". Everyone should start with all options, and may the best team win from there. That's the only time that 100% pure skill takes over, when the "league" doesn't influence the match before it starts.

If your pit crew is made up of 2nd grade Catholic school girls who can't even remove a tire, that is YOUR fault. The league doesn't make you start weak and drive 10,000 laps to improve your crew. Guild Wars does this. The tiers you describe are part of real-world competition in all other activities when made a bit clearer:

Yes, and in this first-tier, you should be in 100% control with no influence from the "league's" mandated hoop jumping (of any kind) as to what you are allowed to access coming in to the field of play. That is the specific point I'm making. Of all the variables involved in a win, nothing is absolute in determining victory (addressing your final paragraphs). However, the one thing that all serious competitive contests share is that those variables are dealt with directly by the players, with NO influence from the game system, when detemining what you feel you need to bring to the activity... except in GW PvP.

Uh, I see a lot more happy than disgruntled players, actually.

About 8:1.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that most people dont like it.

This "obvious truth" being...? That everything else in the competitive world is fair, balanced, nice, loving, caring, compassionate, kind, good, honest, decent? That's basically what you've been trying to say, arredondo.

You're still missing the point. You're referencing outside, real-life sports--many of which are incredibly stressful and demand rigorous emotional and physical conditioning--and claiming them to be so much more fair and balanced than a video game. You're still making weak analogies, even in the "context."

You get all your pieces in Chess because that's the game. Because Chess ISN'T a role-playing game or stat-builder (and neither is Tennis or Basketball in the gaming sense). Players have all their pieces because that's how the game is played. Because everything is set down in front of them so those pieces can be captured. The name of the game in Chess if full-blown elimination. That is not the case in Guild Wars, because the "piece" death in GW is only temporary. You lose a Queen in Chess, it's very, very, very unlikely you're going to get it back. You lose a Monk in GW, a Rez Signet/Spell will fix that pretty easily.

And I'd think that the relative ease and relative repetition of players rezzing each other on the battlefield in GW is testament to just how radically different the design approaches are between GW and Chess/Tennis/Basketball.

You talk about these rules of sports...but you're still not acknowledging that the rules of Chess (not requiring players to "earn" their pieces) are set that way because of the game's design purpose...and the respective design purposes of Chess/Tennis/Basketball are different than the design purposes of GW/MtG.

The sports analogies you're using suck because you're largely ignoring why those games are designed the way they are.

Guild Wars and MtG are based on entirely different concepts than Chess, and also, largely different concepts than Tennis and Basketball. The "rules" in those real-life sports are different because GW and MtG aren't like those real-life sports. That's the key point here. You're referencing totally unrelated ideas, concepts, designs, etc.

Use other role-playing games as your support instead of real-life sports. At least role-playing games have similar concepts.

I don't point to an orange and say "Look! That's how this apple should be!" You shouldn't either. Complain and whine in your reply all you want, about how you're speaking in such a specific context that your analogies aren't faulty, about how I'm "missing the point," but fact of the matter is, arredondo, no matter how you've been phrasing, re-phrasing, repeating, disguising your posts, you've still been doing the same thing: pointing to an orange and whining about how that's what this apple should be like.