The Update: Why We See More Complaints Than Praise

OK. I've heard the argument before, and while Arena Net is god here, they are also fallible. Saying that something is one way because "that is the way it was meant to be" isn't much of an argument. However, I'll give you a pass on explaining why intertwining PvP and PvE is a good idea (which is what you should be arguing), since other people have tried it.

The level of intertwining is a gray scale that can move around a bit. Arena Net clearly doesn't want them bound together as tightly as possible; you can actually play either one without the other to an enormous extent (despite all the complaints). It's not a question of, "Should PvE and PvP be intertwined at all?", but rather rather a question of How Much. Obviously, everyone has their own opinions.

This is easy enough. I am an RPGer. I've played pen-and-paper RPGs for years, and countless computer RPGs. It's certainly one of my favorite types of games.

I guess I just disagree with your premise. When I want to play competitive PvP, if the option existed, I would just build a new character. When I want to play an RPG, I'd play a PvE character. Which is exactly what I do right now. For me, my PvE experience simply does not change if PvP is fully unlocked.

I guess I understand the point you are making. I just don't see how having all the skills in one format affects the other format. PvE doesn't change at all if PvP changes. I still go through and develop my character(s). Just because another character that's essentially in another game world (PvP being a tiny, restricted little world) exists doesn't mean there's no fun to be had in developing a PvE character.

Example: There's tons of cheats in most single-player RPGs; you could automatically twink your character out to be super powerful before you reach the first fight in many such games. But most people don't do that. (At least, until they've played through the game once.) Most people would rather play through the challenges and story, rather than plow through like superman. I see this as being pretty much identical to Guild Wars PvE.

Yeah, this is pretty much what convinced me you were in a totally different mindset than I was. You obviously play games for different reasons than I do. I'm not going to even try to say which of us more people are like, far less try to dictate what most humans are like.

And the two ice creams you describe just aren't the same. PvP flavored ice cream tastes nothing at all like PvE flavored ice cream. So who cares if PvP ice cream is free and you have you pay for PvE ice cream? They just aren't that similar. To me, it feels like you are saying that if Arena Net gave people free ice cream, then playing Morrowind would become less fun. (To be clearer, it would destroy PvE and almost everyone would stop playing Guild Wars).

If you want rewards for grinding, presumably Guild Wars is not the game you want. =)

So... it wouldn't kill it for you? Or maybe there's an important word missing from that sentence. I'm not being snarky, I might geniunely be confused. A good sign, at any rate.


For what it's worth, I'm not in favor of UAX. But I totally disagree with your premise (which is fine; we can have different premises, then it's up to ArenaNet to decide what their premise is if they wanted to listen to any of us). The story is important to me, and the combat is fun too (though obviously it can get repetitive, but I don't think most of it is).

Maybe for you, it's all about rewards, but it's definitely not true for all players. Arena Net can do their own polls to figure out what most people care about, if they want.

If I just wanted rewards, I'd go play slot machines. That's the ultimate game that panders to the part of human nature that just wants rewards.

Uhm. I'm an obsessive PvP player, as much as an obsessive PvE player.

What this last update has done is tilt the balance towards more skilled players. The more skilled you are in the beginning of your PvP experience (if you're not PvEing), the more skills you'll have and the more stuff you'll unlock. Here's your incentive to be skilled, pvper.

You don't like PvP and PvE being bound together? Sorry for you. But you see, aside from the "a.net is god" argument, there's another that is very very effective, even it is dead simple: "that is the way it was meant to be." - not assuming a role of authority here, just stating the simple fact that THIS IS WHY GW is DIFFERENT.

GW is unique. Why? For many reasons, one of them is that PvP and PvE are not separated completely, but they're separated _enough_. You won't have jerks ripping you of drops or kills or lvl20 chars killing a newbie (as in low-level pg) for the fun of it.

You know what? PvP in GW is not perfectly balanced. That's right. People that have played PvE are at an advantage (much easier to unlock stuff in PvE). PvE players that never play PvP are at a disadvantage and won't be part of the REAL guild WAR.

Get it right: this is the game that arena.net wanted. Not a perfect PvP arena, not a PvE only RPG. A PvP/PvE mixture. They gave us the option to privilege one or the other... but don't get it wrong. If you want to play one OR the other, you're in the wrong game. Does this mean you should go away? no. But to say that GW is "broken" or that A.Net "failed" because the 2 are linked... is missing the point.

GW is less of a PvE game than most other mmoRPG. GW is less of a PvP game than most other mmoRTS or whatever. But GW, in its own right, is the best game in its category - because it is UNIQUE! And there is beauty in that fact.

Disclaimer: caps to highlight, not to shout or be aggressive. it is all in my opinion and you're all morons. Won't listen to you, nyanya. I'm not listening, serious!

Calimar.

Personally, I don't care much for PvE, and I agree with much of what arredondo has said about the difference between PvP and PvE. PvP and PvE in ANY game are completely different beasts. If you want to encourage serious PvP play, forcing PvE mechanics on PvP players to unlock stuff is just begging for trouble. I like the intense segregation between GW's PvE and PvP systems, because as a big fan of fighting games and other one-on-one games, I believe that PvP should be a completely standalone experience, something that you can jump into and out of at will, but is still deep enough for you to get totally immersed in the intense mind games and grueling pace of the match itself. All the same tools should be available to you and your opponent, with the only real difference between both players being skill.

That being said, I believe the new PvP rewards system is a much bigger improvement than some give it credit for. I believe the skills should be somewhat cheaper for the benefit of less skilled teams, or players without the benefit of a guild to play for, but this new system has much further seperated the need for PvE grind from PvP skill-building and practice, and that to me is a pretty damn big improvement.

I may need 1K faction to get a minor rune, but I'll take 3 hours in random arena when all my guildmates are offline over three hours in Fissure staggering my way into the tower at -60% and really wanting to take a break and watch TV any day of the week.

My main suggestions for improvement to the system would be:

- Make normal skills cheaper to buy. Like, 250 or 500 or so. That's only about 3 hours' worth of random arena right there, assuming you win at least 10% of the times you go in. When you're a PvP newbie working on your first char build, nothing talks louder more immediately than skills, even more so than runes.

- Might want to cheapen weapon upgrades, too. The minor ones, anyway.

- Add Priests of Balthazar in the arena lobbies, because I'm too lazy to log on my PvE chars to cash in my faction.

P.S. What fighting games have you played, arredondo? I iwsh more people played 'em, if you play 'em at a decent level they really teach you a lot about recognizing opportunities and adapting on the fly to changes in an opponent's strategy. That kinda skill is, of course, essential in Guild Wars.

Here we've come to it. The central point of this thread. I put the nail in your coffin right in front of you, and you run away from it like a frightened school girl. In my thread that I created I make my point that if you please the league by "hoop jumping" for a few hundred extra hours, you gain advantages. If you refuse to address this single, important point head on (the questions again are below), why waste our time by openly trying to avoid it?

This system in GW is anti-competition and devalues skillful play, and a greater difference becomes more pronounced between the teams who put in less grinding time as a group and those that have. I illustrated this with my multiple choice questions to you, and penned up against the corner with absolutely no easy escape, you refused to answer:

I'm not saying teams are perfect. I'm not saying there's no room for error. I'm not saying one team will defeat the other team 100% of the time. I'm saying that when you match up teams with similar abilities, there is an advantage/disadvantage effect between those who grinded out more gear to strategize with than those who didn't. Slight or great, IT EXISTS.

People say Kobe Bryant and TMac are close in skills and abilities. Certain difference in their game exist, but they're close enough for what we are discussing. If they played each other 1v1 on a full court that's half as long as a normal court, who has the advantage... the one who shoots at an abnormal hoop with a smaller circle in size and a non-standard 15 feet high (because of his lack of grinding for the league), or the one whose basket is normal NBA circle size and is a normal 10 feet high (who grinded 300 hours for the league)? Allow both sides to have equal access to all gear and equipment allowed, then let it be skillful play vs. skillful play.

Yes, there are variable things that affect the outcome of a match that is in control of the player/team, but this ENTIRE THREAD was created because there should be no outside influence that gives any advantage (slight or great) to those who grind enough for the league. With that in mind, I'll make it even easier for you by using real life examples so you aren't confused by factors other than gear.

The War Machine guild in Korea currently has enough great players to fill three teams on the first page of the official ladder rankings (#5, #8, #12 respectively). Their ratings are 1688, 1640, and 1625. For purposes of these questions, Let's call them WM A, B, and C. Being from the same guild, having strategized together for all this time, you can't deny that all three are very strong teams.

Now, back to the exact same questions you tried to dodge. Show some intellectual courage this time and DIRECTLY answer please:

------------------------------------------------------------
All things being about equal, with skillful teammates and top level tactics shared by all... which team has the obvious advantage based on hours spent "jumping through hoops" for the league?

WM A) Has 10% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM B) Has 50% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM C) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from

Take your time.


*** BONUS QUESTION! ***

All things being about equal, with skillful teammates and top level tactics shared by all... which team has the obvious advantage?

WM A) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM B) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
WM C) Has 100% of all the skills, runes, and top gear to choose from
-- or --
D) We find out on the field of battle.
---------------------------------------------------------

So for questions 1 & 2, what are your answers?

You mistake criticizing a faulty example for running away from a point, arredondo. Keep that in mind.

And again, I'm saying that the premises of your questions are not what the current state of Guild Wars is. There isn't such a black and white in the game as in your questions, arredondo, so your questions, while entertaining, are irrelevant in this context. But for the sake of argument, I'll entertain you.

Nobody in their right mind would say that given everything equal, with totally similar skills and abilities, that a better equipped team wouldn't have an advantage.

But your question holds little bearing here, because even The War Machine has trained ungodly amounts of time, and through their extended amount of time with the game, whether that's unlocking or not, they've become far more skilled than most others. Even during the unlocking process, you're still playing the game, and still using skill, still adapting to new situations.

Your questions are relevant only if the state of the game is totally reflected by them, and from what I've read, seen, heard, played, etc., it's not. Teams and guilds are not all on equal footing, even the top-tier ones. There are still variables in play that inhibit or enhance performances. There is no pure skill in the game, regardless of what's going on, and there is no absolute benchmark measuring tool that you've been trying to use here.

Pure and simple, everything is not equal, everyone does not possess similar personal skills and personal abilities (hell, even playstyle approach). Some may come close to each other, but there will always be some gradation, which is why a question based on the idea of an equal skill and similar abilities premise is ultimately irrelevant, because very, very few players will ever be on totally equal skill levels.

The answer to your question is above in bold face, but it's only an answer to your question, and not an answer to Guild Wars.

You're viewing things in black and white, but it's really a lot of shades of gray.

So you're saying that because Kobe is so much better than me at basketball, he gets to wear shoes while I must play barefoot? It's a gear problem, not a "who is more skilled than the other guy" problem. Just because WM is made up of a bunch of koreans who are renowned for their skill doesn't mean they should have gear while I'm denied it because I'm not as skilled. The gear should be equal for everyone no matter how much they've played, and the thing that decides whether a team wins or loses should be how skilled they are at the game. That brings us back to the fundamental core of all things competitive, which has been discussed to death already, so I'll leave it at that.

But UAX isn't the answer. There are much, much better solutions that would benefit everyone and not just the ungrateful little shits. lol

You have yet to present any other than trying to derail the idea that everyone should be equal walking into the arena.

You mean I haven't been re-iterating that the recent PvP unlock system is a step in the right direction, and that I'm completely supportive of tweaking it so that less time is required to unlock the skills and so forth? I see no problem at all with adjusting the faction points requirements/payout so that a more comfortable medium is achieved. UAX, like I've said before, is the nuclear option at the complete opposite extreme of the current system in play.

It's like this:

Why are people so pissed about the unlocking system? Because in its current state, it's a bit too much of a time investment for some.

How is that corrected? Not by scrapping the entire system, but through revision of the system.

Actually, that's not true. There are alot of ppl in this thread (like PieXags) who are simply incoherent when making an argument. Example:
It's apparent that this person is not living on the same planet. Perhaps we should abandon the comparison of sports to GW and reflect on everyday events in our lives. How about this? A film course at my university requires all students to create a full-length film by the end of the semester, at which time the best as selected by a committe will be submitted to a prestigious film festival. Here are some of the "rules". All students will be given access to a state-of-the-art digital camcorder, a fully equipped laptop to edit their film on, and the most recent graphic and animation software. They need not use this equipment to produce their film and may use other means if they so choose. but the equipment will be available to them. Without exception all in this particular class chose to use the equipment. This had not always been the case. In the past students were not furnished with equipment and had to either borrow or spend their own money (few did) to take this course. Film submissions were unusually low and academically the course suffered. When the new regulations were implemented, film submissions soared and there are now waiting lists to get in the class. Furthermore, a recent college survey found that students felt more confident and motivated to do well because of the "level playing field" provided by the University. The ppl who are against a UAX button in this game don't seem to realize that while equipment alone is not the determining factor in a competition, the RIGHT to have the same equipment is the fairest way in determining who succeeds. ANET will never institute a UAX button(s) because of economical concerns but the very fact that they established an unlocking system for PvP proves that their initial plans for the competitive arenas were wrong.

No, he's saying that because Germany was so much better at mining and manufacturing than France in 1940, Germany gets Panzers and Stukas while France must defend itself with the Maginot Line.

The game makes a lot more sense when you remember that it's Guild Wars, and let go of the notion that it's somehow about sports.

—Siran Dunmorgan

You're saying sports aren't a good comparison but countries are? And what does it matter that they're sports? How about if I bring up the popular analogy of guild wars to chess, in that both players have the same pieces but skill determines the winner. I'm comparing GW to a competitive game, not necessarily a sport.

It's about fair competition, which is why GW is comparable to any competitive activity, including sports, when we discuss this topic. The fundamental question is, in competitive activity 'X', does it diminish skillful play when the "league" allowed one side to start an advantage over the other based on hundreds of "hoops jumped through"? Fill in X with what ever you wish, and the answer for the supporters of fair competitive play is NO.

I have to respectfully tip my hat to Siren... I really thought it would be a 10-round fight to get him to admit to the fact that I've emphasized since the beginning. The current system DOES influence the outcome of every single match based on how much time one has spent 'unlocking' gear to the league's satisfaction. Sometimes slight, sometimes great, sometimes unnoticiable, but it is indeed there. This is fact, no one can continue to argue against it.

Now we have a question of is it a good thing for Guild Wars? It is here where opinions obviously vary. For serious PvP'ers who want to win or lose 100% on their own abilities, planning and preparation, the obvious answer is no. They don't want help from the league, they don't want to be limited by the league... just like every other competitive activity 'X'.

If you are NOT into serious PvP, I can see how you may not care, or are fine with the current system. Some actually think (erroneously) that they are a special Level 9 player because they can easily gank newbies in the early arenas because they have on max armor that they got from guild mates or Droknar rushes.

Tell me please, those who are in the middle, whether you have better equipment from this allowed exploit or better equipment (and skills/runes) from 100s of hours of 'unlocking', you have to admit that you aren't excelling purely on your own abilities, right? You can't be satisfied with a win if you have 90% of the stuff unlocked, and you beat someone who is skilled but only has 10% of the stuff unlocked in the friend's account he is using, right? That's all we're saying... all wins and losses should be based on factors brought on by YOUR situation and NOT under a forced mandate from the league.

Finally the pure PvE'rs who only want to hold back skillful play in PvP because they cherish the PvP-related rewards that PvE unlocking and adventuring gives them. Solution? Ask that the PvE rewards for achieving goals be 100% PvE related. I wrote on that idea a lot in another post that I'll find, but PvE people won't care about UAX if they understand that the rewards for endured and accomplished PvE play is not PvP-related.

Lol, don't get pulled into his war posts. The footnote to each and every one of my posts on competitive activities is that if the goal is to kill people on the other side, then I'm in no way referring to that activity in my responses. Whether one can argue or not this issue is one thing, but I choose instead to stay on topic.

Isnt tweaking it so that its less of a time sink the same as saying everyone be unlocked in X amount of time, instead of everyone being unlocked now? Dollars to donuts, people will get unlocked and should anyone new begin playing then they will just end up having to jump through those hoops as well if they decide they want to pvp. As a new person still learning the game, it will invariably be quite frustrating as they consistantly lose to older characters, that dont neccarially have more skill as a player, but experience to know what works vs what doesnt and have the options set before them to change to suit the need as neccacary. Cant really learn or adapt if the options are not there.

Personally i dont care either way what happens to the game at this point, but i dont think you are really understanding what you are saying as you type it out.

i think everybody should reflect on several items

1 Anet has completely alienated the extremes on both sides.

the dingaholics are gone or going or still yelling for more levels

and the rabid hardcore pvp people are long gone going or still hoping if they yell long and loud enough Anet will scrap a bedrock core part of the game for them.

what is left is a mostly happy middle ground enjoying the game

2. while Anet does listen and respond to the customers they have a point beyond which they will not bend because in their opinion it will hurt the game.

NOTE THEY MAY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU DO

3. in spite of the extremes leaving there are still very high reviews being given for the game AS IT IS and there are a lot of people having fun with it

In all of the arenas and more than half the Tombs maps, the goal is to kill all of the people on the other side, isn't it?

It always seemed to me that that's why we have things like bows, axes, hammers, swords and whatnot.

I don't even need to draw an analogy to make that assertion.

—Siran Dunmorgan

Covert versus overt actions, i believe was the point. There is some subtlely in transportaion and denail over outright killing.

this is true! i can't even get into all the commentary that's been going on, but it's why it's called a game... fun! i don't even have a pvp character and i already spend too much time playing! <- understatement of the year.

enjoy it please, for the sake of [whoever wins at the end of the game] since i haven't even finished it yet!

...and i can see why it would be nice to have all things unlocked for PvP, flexibility-wise, but you can't at the moment, and life's a bitch

I give the game a 9.8 rating. I loved PvE more than Half-Life 2 or any other solo/co-op game I've played in the last few years. I still stand by everything I've said about how the PvP system and hope for continued improvements.

As I mentioned before, if it's perfect already, why do they keep taking forced PvE elements out of PvP almost every update? Either way, It remains the only game I've played for two months, and I look forward to future updates and expansions.

I wrote my post about your question on my way from work... I'm home now and thought a lot about what I'm trying to say... war is all about *unfair* competition. You *want* to have an unfair advantage over the opposition because with losing many times comes the ultimate punishment (death).

You can say defending your family from an intruder in your home is "competitive", but again it is unfair competition since each of you want to stop the other from gaining an advantage almost by any means necessary.

So with all the stuff we refer to here, we are talking about *fair* competitions. In fair competitions, the system shouldn't give an advantage to one side before the activity begins. That keeps it fair, and being stocked with options for ton of skills, runes, and gear in GW when your opponent is looking at slim pickings is uncompetitive as shown above.

Beyond that, I remember your earlier posts about a game system that might revolve around this angle. Not Guild Wars, but how about another CORPG that emphasize and even encourages unfair play mechanics? Since we've established (finally) that GW PvP system is inherently unfair (but still fun) for pure, skillful play, I'm willing to go on wild tagents:

By Any Means Necessary - a CORPG by me, myself and I

12:00 AM PST, January 1st, 2006 the game is released. Goal? To have the most points by the time the game period ends... 11:59 December 31st, 2006. How do you get the a lot of points while keeping others from doing the same? By any means necessary because the winner gets $1 million real dollars.

Let me start by saying this game is completely unfair. You are never safe, even offline. You can be killed at anytime by anyone, including your teammates. All is fair, nothing is outlawed within the game environment. Besides other players in the single persistent world, there are tons of enemy/friendly NPCs. All chat in game is 100% open. Nothing is hidden at all.

Quests, missions, goals and objectives are everywhere, but you can get points by doing any action you want. You get points every minute you stay alive. The only penalty is dying, which will always take 2% of your points away and keep you from playing for 60 real life minutes. Frustrated? Tough, because this game isn't fair.

Your character? Completely random from many programmed options. You can't adjust stats at all. Let's say your character earns points at a rate of 100 a minute, but your buddy's character gets 500 a minute... don't like it? Tough. Got awful starting skills, like gold melting in your hands making normal purchases impossible? Too bad. You started with 100 points on Jan 1st (day 1), but your brother started with 257,000 points on a new account made on August 20th? Don't complain, because no one will listen. Buy another account for $5 if stats are important to you because this game isn't fair.

Or instead, stick it out and achieve objectives that increase your point rate or allow you to improve/remove skills that you have a problem with. Or gives you the skills to steal points/items from others. Or makes you so powerful, that you can destroy anyone in your path once every 10 seconds.

Like most games, you can accumulate all kinds of super gear and abilities with no limits. Just don't be upset if you randomly lose it or break it. Or a gang of 50 team up to take you and your insta-kill weapon out for the count to steal it from you.

One ability you will want are point reading glasses. If you can see who's walking around with a lot more points than everyone else in the area, call for a mob fight and gank him. The world allows these people to hide in closests, furniture, logs, underwater, etc. to avoid getting ganked, but you'll cleverly find ways to team up with others to seek them out. Find parts to create point hoarder detectors and the like.... you'll find them.

A Grenth's Balance-esque transfer of points is given to whomever delivers the final blow to a dying character involved in a skirmish. The more points he had than you, the greater your gain and the greater his loss. Not fair that a Level 5 can steal 500,000 points from a Level 80 because he teleports in, delivers a final hit and disappears, but this game's not meant to be fair.

You have to stop playing and go to real life? Find a way to get a safe place to "live" because your character is always online. Make sure it is well hidden and/or well protected because you may find yourself buttnaked with only 50 points after 6 months of playing if you left yourself too vulnerable.

Hire bodyguards or train wicked patrol creatures. Build near-impenatrable doors. Teleport into a cave opening blocked by a giant rock. Set up fifty traps all around the entrances... your points slowly decrease on the inside, dropping faster the longer you stay "out" of the main game world and in your home, but at least you're safe. You hope.

December 31, 2006. Final day. A hidden mountain trail that is revealed in the last 24 hours of play before it's all over; $1,000,000 will be awarded to whomever reaches the end of that trail and stands atop the mountain with the most points once the clock is up. A minimum number of points is needed (unknown) to even gain access to this trail, along with 100 random others. Didn't make the cut? Too bad, this game isn't fair. Someone bought an account just before the final day and had enough points to get in? Tough luck for you, ain't it?

For those that are allowed to make the trek, deaths on the way up are aplenty. However, it now takes you out for only 15 minutes. 24 hours of team alliances forming and being broken. Promises made about splitting the prize money "if you help protect me" are common. But who can you trust?

The more powerful are taken out by mobs, while the weak hide and stealth kill, looking for opportunities for easy points. At the end of the trail, the ten highest point holders are allowed access to the peak, safe from the others. The only way to get in and bump someone out of the peak is to fight along the trail to get more points. Bumped out? Fight your way back in by getting points.

On the peak, the ten fight constantly to keep what they have as time runs down. Wenever your total drops blow a person on the trail, he comes in and you go out. Playing 24 hours (real world time) on the trail, with only 15 minute breaks during death sounds cruel, but hey, it's a $1,000,000!!! Only one winner will be left at the end. And he will have won by any means necessary.

I'm understanding what I'm saying as I'm typing it out. Otherwise, I wouldn't be typing it out.

I'll explain it again. People say there's too much time involved in unlocking skills and upgrades. Some use that to say that the faction point requirements/payouts should be altered. But others say because a (week-old) system is such a huge timesink (though, based on a span of only one week, how accurate can any estimations be?), and competition must be based on only skill, the system should be scrapped entirely and the gaming populace be given an UAX system that was clearly a Beta option, which was never intended to be any part of the final product. So here we have two options:

One, tweak the system so that people can still play the game however they like and be able to equip their characters in a timely fashion.

Two, UAX.

There are only two systems we can have here. Unlock or UAX. But contrary to the opinions of some, there is a middle ground in there: an Unlock system that isn't so restrictive in terms of time investment. People are arguing for a system that requires no time investment at all. That's not going to happen, because GW is still built upon the principles of an RPG. But what can happen is a tweaking/streamlining of the current system, wherein the "hoops" (as some have come to call it) are not so daunting.

That's a much more reasonable and realistic option, I'd say...as would any rational person, I'd think...than the UAX nuclear option.

But then you're speaking in such vague terms that you'd have to ignore differences between what particular values you plug-in for 'X'. And that would mean ignoring distinctions between how various systems are structured, which isn't a good idea, because those differences are similar to the shades of gray I mentioned earlier...hell, they are shades of gray.

In competition in the vaguest sense of the word, fine, you need to be on a level playing field--but I was never really arguing that there doesn't need to be a level playing field, only that your analogies and comparisons were crap; having a level playing field would entail everything about that system being equal and fair--and there are always inequalities.

You were pointing to outside systems and claiming they were fair because of some instant access to the best equipment...but that's false...which I've been saying all along. And that's why I've been trying to get you to use different references, examples, analogies, etc., because everything you've been bringing in is the complete opposite of what you've been trying to argue.

Nothing is fair in the world, especially when it comes to sports. The Eagles just got a new stadium less than two years ago, even when other teams had gotten state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line additions and upgrades to theirs long before. Why is this? As far as I can recall, it was a totally arbitrary "don't have the time/space/money" for it. Sports are fair? No, not really.

Whether it's the type of field a football team plays on (astroturf, for example, plays differently than grass), or their location (who would disagree that Southern teams are at a disadvantage when playing in New England, and vice versa, because they don't regularly play in those other climates?)...whether it's a particular style of racket a player is used to using, or a particular type of court...whether the military is bombing the living shit out of a lesser-developed people (it happens...oh it happens. lol)...the idea stays the same: nothing is ever truly universal and fair.

If all teams were granted dome stadiums, the best grass fields around...basically all granted the same things...where would the team dynamics be? I find it incredibly interesting when the New England Patriots are facing off against Jacksonville with home-field advantage, because there's a level of drama there because these two teams aren't facing up on an equal setting. But do we hear the losing team (let's say Jacksonville) complain about how they went in there given the short end of the stick, because they don't have a stadium in New England? No. From what I've seen, it's actually a pretty nice attitude..."We gave it our best shot, but it just didn't work out. The other team played really well, and things didn't go our way."

Even those professional players understand that their sport isn't fair and likely, isn't going to be fair, but largely, they're not ranting like we see here. They're professionals just as much as hardcore PvPers here are "professionals," relatively. So why don't we see the same kind of professional attitude? It goes back to the original question of this thread.

Also, while sports may try to be fair, it's really not going to be. There are steps it can take, sure...but ultimately, we're still going to be watching sports for the same reason we always have: to see Mike Tyson get the living crap beaten out of him in the ring. We watch to satisfy the primal urges of sex and violence. The more unfair, the better...makes for better entertainment. Think Thunderdome.

War is like this, only exponentially increased. The purpose of war is annihilation by whatever means necessary (arre, here's your latest post). War is all about exploiting weaknesses. It's about overpowering your opponent, it's about utterly destroying them. That is the purpose of combat. I don't want to turn this into a philosophical discussion about ethics...but in war, people will get hurt. They'll get embarrassed. They'll be humiliated. They'll be disappointed. They'll be killed, and sometimes, quite brutally. Sometimes, they won't even stand a chance.

Is this fair? Not at all. But it's how things work. It's how combat works. And real life sports are the same thing, sans with a few ethical rules added.

To a certain extent, GW does has ethical rules in that it's designed to minimize ganking and in that it's designed to provide balanced gameplay. But the core of the philosophy of the game...is combat. Kill the other team as fast and hard as you can. Shut them down, debilitate them. Cut off their escape. Fundamentals of war, not friendly competition. And really, the "serious competition" people are talking about...that's just another way of saying "fundamentals of war." We're not making sure our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq are equipped with the same caliber of equipment that we are...because our goal is to win.

Arre, I don't think your wild tangent is worthwhile by any stretch of the imagination, by the way. It's an exaggeration for no reason other than to be an exaggeration, and in no way, shape or form remotely resembles anything we've been discussing here.

To answer your question regarding attitudes toward victory...my goal is just to have fun, honestly. If I win, coolbeans. If I lose, shitballs. I more appreciate the fighting itself than the ethical and moral strings that some people attach to it, because ultimately...uh...people are attaching some pretty hefty moral and ethical issues...to a video game. I think that type of discussion over what's fair and all could be better utilized in something that actually, you know, matters? ~_^

You're right that most competitive games aren't completely fair. But guild wars is about ad far away from fair as you can realistically be. UAX would make things just as fair if not fairer than most competitive games. And the whole war analogy is flawed. There's a reason sports and pvp video games are called GAMES and war is called WAR.

(I know I said I didn't have reason to post here again, but I have to say it.)

"There's a reason sports and pvp video games are called GAMES and war is called WAR."

What about war video games?

:P by war I meant actual war, as in "I am running at a bunch of people trying to kill me while trying to kill them, and whoever is killed is really killed. Really." Plus, people have a choice whether or not to play video games. Soldiers don't really have a choice whether or not to participate in war.

This is only true if Joe uses his character in PvP. If Joe wants to PvE there is not other alternatitive to unlocking. Seeing as Joe PvE probably likes PvE, there shouldn't be much of a problem with that.

The effort is not wasted if Joe enjoyed his PvE experience.

Then it seems you understand the problem posed by the massive skill grind in this game. It was fun the first time, but now I'm doing it my 5th.

This is a problem in every game, The absence of UAX only lenthens this.


No, however the point I was making was that 30 health can and does matter. Conversely to this example I'm sure there have been many times where a character has died just before that word of healing got off and could have been saved with a +30 health modifier. This doesn't only apply to +30 mods, but to anything that could speed up damage or keep you alive longer. It doesn't help all the time, but the some of the time is enough to warrant its use.

Because some skills are not often seen does in no way indicate that they are useless. In fact, some are incrediably usefull, it just takes more than one person to make full use of them. I"m fairly confidant if the skills were entirely useless they would not be in the game at all (unnatural signet) UAX would increase the number of noncookie-cutter builds seen as everyone would have access to the more abstract or 'useless' skills.

Ok from this post ill concede that you really dont know what you are talking about then. Ill refer back to a post by tuna.
Lets say that someone is only interested in skills, for the sake of argument, and the simple calculations already provided. We will also assume that this person is relativly new and has no faction already built. Then take the worst case scenario that they need to earn them all, in order to fully experience everything the game has to offer in pvp. Since this person is new and competing against people that are not, it will adversly affect their performance, but we will ignore that for now. This person will most likely begin play in the arenas and will very likely take some heavy playtime before they join up with a regular crew and begin to succesfully compete in more lucrative areas such as tombs or guild versus guild.

Now that is established we will focus on just the arena fights. For the sake of argument, lets assume this person's team wins every time, with none of this person's opponents dropping out lessining the faction gain and each match lasts an average of 2 minutes, including time between matches and loading. The average time period is excessivly low, but it will illustrate my point. So 2 minutes per match and requiring 39,375 arena wins would translate into just over 54 days spent in front of the keyboard playing the game. Somehow you are trying to argue that a system like this is reasonable in terms of balance in a realm that doesnt really need anything stopping from people competing against each other on the same terms. Calculations like that remind me of EVE online where the player is basically forced to sit and wait for skills to train, so that the character will be on the same playing feild when it comes to pvp. In eve, much like this game, the actual tools available are important, but can be worked around if they are not available unlike in pvp. Also the equipment is a bit less important comparitivly as it merly adjusts the efficiency the character operates at in the pve environment, while in the pvp environment it can easily be the edge that determines sucess from failure.

This model for advancement is very common for pay to play services, which esentially ensures the company's finances at a pre-determined rate. This is achieved at rating the amount of allowed player advancement versus the timing of the next content release. This seems fairly pointless considering the setup ANET has with guidlwars.

Arguing for it to be reduced is the same as arguing for it to be removed, hence my earlier comment regarding that you didnt understand what you were suggesting as you did so. Either you are pro exclusive content or you are pro inclusive content, there really isnt any middle ground here. I found it amusing at first that you were then rebuttling against those who suggested the removal of the system entirely in favor for a balanced playing field. It has become stale and i think you need to realize what you are doing.

Personally i feel that the correct path is to seperate the pvp and the pve worlds and allow for the unlock system to exist for the pve players, as it shows a natural progression through the pve game, while allowing for the pvp players to fight against each other on the same terms. Others have voiced a similar opinion and the only real drawback is the smaller playerbase for each side to draw upon for pvp style encounters. Considering the existing pvp system, it doesnt make sense to keep characters anyway, so recycling the slots and remaking the characters to suit the need makes sense. By contrast taking a pve character into pvp, forces the character into a quasi stasis, as the character is no longer able to re-assign points due to the removal of exp from the fights until the pve character goes out and kills X minotaurs or whatever to regain the points in order to respec for another build strategy.

The pvp system feels very incompatible with the pve system and is highlighted by many of the opinions posted within these forums. I think the intent was to blend the two without forcing anything on anyone, but the exact opposite was achieved. I will agree that a revamping of the system is neccary, but in doing so requires to essentially scraping the entire system placed before it as is now.

Arredondo, I will begin by saying I completely agree with your play preferences. I would have loads more fun if I was free to experiment with all of my build ideas right now instead of having to finish unlocking all the elites, runes, etc (a process I still enjoy, but would prefer to be separate from my pvp experience). I more greatly enjoy a competitive game that stresses player attributes over character attributes.

To a degree, I look down on the attitude of people who feel the need to be rewarded with a material competitive advantage as opposed to simply an advantage of self-improvement with their time investment. I feel that this implies a lack of confidence/reliance on the self, and says something about you as a person.

These examples where people say there will always be an advantage with time invested because it leads to knowing better combinations and strats, etc. make no sense to me, because there is a difference between an advantage gained via self-improvement, and an advantage gained via game-given variables.

I have stated these opinions so you will know that what I say next comes from someone who shares your views, and is not simply being said for the sake of arguing against you. You are being just as close-minded as the people you argue against. You fail to see that you have interests and desires, and other people have different interests and desires. This very discussion proves that there are many people who feel passionately about both sides.

You forget that A.net's purpose in making Guild Wars is NOT to create a professional competition like basketball or chess. If it were, then you would be correct in that it would be best served in removing time-investment advantages. But the main purpose is to make a game that is fun for their players. And as we have seen, many players do want a system of rewards for their time invested in pvp.

Anybody who claims that their opinion on how the game should be is the right one needs to back it up with polls/surveys/research into what best pleases the majority of the playerbase. I have seen none of this on either side.

i think this one simple question covers everything.

what exactly is the target group of players that Anet is shooting at with GW?

i was not in the planning of it but they are obviously (by observation) shooting for the truly CASUAL gamer and not the self proclaimed 4-6 (or more) hour per day player who calls that much casual

not the hardcore dingaholic

not the super hardcore pvp either

by sales of the game they seem to be on target and remember that the game has just come out

i think in another 6 months we will have a much better idea of where the game is going but we will not be seeing a major shift from where we are now

i said MAJOR not that there may not be a bunch of heavy (or light) tweeking

MuKen... I'm not as closed minded as you may think. The most difficult thing here I believe was making the consistently strong point that it is indeed a fact that the current system devalues skillful competitive play. That is a fact.

However, in one of my last posts I acknowledge that there are people who have reasons for preferring that difference, or "opinion", on this matter. I can not tell people to like it the way I like it anymore than they can make me feel like I do. But before discussions of preference can take place, it was important that we at least acknowedge the factual state of things as they exist today.

Of course I have my own very strong feelings about it because of how much emphasis I see being made on the serious aspect of PvP, and I also think they can get away with not offending PvE people by adding rewards that are not PvP-related. That is a major reason why they wish to hold back PvP from what it could be like they do.

I like both modes, but for different reasons. I play Guild Wars so much, if I were only paid minimum wage per hour I'd still be a rich man. And it is because I like it so much that I have the strong feelings about it that I've expressed. I'm not even asking for all this to necessarily make things "easy" for me. For my chosen professions, I only have one major rune and three superiors to get before I can *almost* ignore my RPG character for PvP play (she still has some better weapon options that I can never get in PvP only).In the end, I don't want to have an adavantage, no matter how slight, for my hundreds of hours devoted to 'unlocking' activities, just like I don't someone to have any such advantage over me. With that said, I dread the day when I'm ready for a new combo class.... I do NOT want to PvE again with a new RPG character until the expansion comes out. I'm dragging out my experimentations with my current class so Arena.net can fix the system to where it's easier to switch primaries for PvP. I understand it may be awhile before they come to their senses however

Siren:

Fairness in the structure of the rules is the common theme in all activity 'X's. I've addressed this numerous times. The supporters of what I've been saying and I who value skillful competition want to rise and fall with no league influence on the outcome based on hours grinded to please them so we can fully explore all the allowed "gear" options available.

Let's say I'm an expert at playing my desired UAX Guild Wars PvP. Let's say for this discussion there is an official 1v1 mode, and I'm known everywhere as being the top dog. Someone e-mails me and says there's a teenager in Ethiopia who wishes to challenge me in a match 12 months from today. A few problems though....

- He hasn't played Guild Wars before
- He hasn't even used a computer before
- His poor 1-room hut doesn't even have electricity

I accept the challenge, and expect to pulverize him (in the game). However he makes me promise that i will not hold back... he doesn't want any advantages applied to him, he doesn't want me with any handicaps. I respect that immensely, as that is what skillful competition is all about. Win or lose, it is 100% on you to step up and take care of your business.

Guess what? The kid is a prodigy. He's adopted by a family in England. Besides his studies, he gets time at a rec center to learn to play games, including Guiild Wars. He spends all his free time there learning how to play. Nearly a year later, he's done so well in school, that he is given a computer of his own with his favorite game already loaded on it.

I get a message that he's ready to play me. He's practiced for months and it shows. He only recently got his current copy, but so what? All the options are available because of UAX! He puts up a GREAT fight, but still gets pulverized (because, 1v1 I am the man you know ) With that said, it was a fair competition, pure skill determined the winner, and we both look forward to future matches against each other.

Now, withOUT UAX in that scenario, there are all kinds of OTHER variables to influence the outcome as you (and I) point out, but he should at least have the chance to face me with the same league-allowed options that I have. What kind of match would it be if I have almost all unlocked, but he is using a new account? Sure he had it tough in real life just to be able to compete, but to get past the challenges one has in one's situation in life, no one considers that "unfair" in competition because the league isn't forcing the situation on you. What would've been unfair is me vs. him in a non-UAX match.

I control your destiny, and while I may not always overcome my challenges (I'll never get the world record for the 100M Dash), as long as the league doesn't limit my potential to do my best, it's accepted that the rest is up to me to maximize my potential (no matter how impossible the goal may seem).

Fair play and equal ability are two separate issues. In fair play, we expect the rules to be the same for all of us, regardless of hours grinded to please the league. In competitions between inherently equal or unequally skilled competitiors, it's up to those competitiors to put themselves in a position to win. One tenet is that the competition is free of influence by the league, the other is all about what you can do (or can not do) to prepare yourself to win based on your personal situation. As long as the league doesn't influence the latter, then you can only blame your particular situation for your failings (or successes), NOT the league.

As for the By Any Means Necessary game, lol, I was being serious! I was wondering out loud what a game that de-emphasized fair competition would be like. Ignore it.

Ok this thread should die. Every single idea in this thread has shown up at least 10 times over the pages, and the argument isn't getting anywhere.

If one side to the argument could possibly prove it's side right over the other it'd be fine, but it's simply impossible because there is no "right" or "wrong" to this. It's a matter of opinions tossed around as supposed facts and nothing more. We've all said what we wanted to say, and I'm sure there's enough in here so that the devs that look over this place have seen it.

Can we let it die?

Please?

For my sake if nothing else.

...but no one has supported a good argument against UAX. They've just dodged the questions over and over. Loviatar, this game was obviously not intended for the casual player. Just look at the numbers for how long it takes to grind faction, in addition to the fact that you'll need to play through PvE a few times. Only the hardcore who have time to grind faction all day long or complete PvE again are rewarded by the current system.

Arredondo, no...it isn't. Something as simple as a southern team like the Atlanta Falcons playing the Green Bay Packers. One team is at a disadvantage. Fairness, my ass. lol. Do you disagree that a team playing in a climate completely opposite to their home field is unfair?

No, it isn't. I'm not arguing for the system to be completely excised from the game...never have been. In the course of the discussion here, I've never condoned removing the PvP unlock system. I'm not sure where you're going with your post, but I'm telling you what I'm arguing and what Arre has been arguing...are two entirely different things.

I've re-iterated numerous times that UAX is a nuclear option at the complete opposite extreme of this spectrum, and only should be considered when all other options have been exhausted, when there is no chance in hell the system can go anywhere else, and most importantly, when it is undeniable from all points of view, developer or otherwise, that no other avenue is possible.

But as it stands now? We've not arrived at that point. The system is only a few weeks old and already people are calling for its demise. Perhaps I'm just patient, but I think people are kind of jumping the gun here by ranting and raving like this not even three weeks after the PvP unlock system was updated.

I'm saying that tweaking/altering the system should be tried first.

Others are saying the system should be thrown out entirely without a second thought.

That's not saying the same things here. That's not the same argument. That's not arguing for the same thing, and it's not arguing the same thing.

Indeed?

Well... let me try this one, then:

There is no UAx in the game because adding one would impair the flexibility available to the designers in expanding the game.

The designers have goals in mind of what they would like to accomplish with this game, in terms of strategic and tactical 'depth'.

I have offered the example—not that I expect it to be implemented, but it is one possibility—that at some point, resources available to PvP teams will act as actual controllable resources, i.e., it will be possible to either re-lock or even 'steal' an enemy's access to a skill, rune or weapon upgrade. Even the possibility of this option would be intrinsically denied if UAx were available.

Another possibility includes long-term PvP rewards, such as the winners of a tournament being granted access to a 'special' skill that only members of that guild could use: UAx sets a precedent against this option.

These are only a couple of ideas; any creative team such as ArenaNet could come up with a dozen others.

And before you offer specific objections to these specific ideas—respond to the underlying idea: that implementation of a UAx system would close off entire domains of future design options, and open up none.

—Siran Dunmorgan

arredondo: I'm glad to hear that you can respect other people's views as well, and am impressed with your ability to take a post like mine, which was rather harsh, in stride. I agree with your assessment: more emphasis on in-game advantages like skills and runes translates to less emphasis on player skill. There are three things that influence a zero-sum game, game mechanical advantages, player ability advantages, and luck of the situation, and any game will balance these three. So it cannot be debated that more of one (game mechanics) equals less of the others.

arredondo and The Human Torch: That being said, this does not translate to an argument for why the game should be one way or should be another. I will tell you the one good argument against UAX that, if not stated, has been present throughout this debate: somebody (the people you are arguing against) don't like it. You do not need to justify a like or dislike with logic, it is simply there. And that dislike itself is logical justification for not having it, because, as I said, A.net's goal is to serve the wants of its players.

None of us can know how much the playerbase as a whole wants or does not want UAX. Your friends, a site survey, message boards....none of these things are random samples of the playerbase. So as long as we know that there are people existing in both sides, we have no choice but to accept that neither is necessarily right.

The one suggestion I saw some pages back that looked really good to me was to have another arena existing that is separate from the current arenas and ladders and has UAX, so that there would exist an outlet catering to each taste. This would be a great idea, and hurts nobody.

Sigh:

"Fairness in the structure of the rules is the common theme in all activity 'X's."

To take your example....

A)
- Are the two teams equal in abilities? No.
- Is it because of league influence of mandated "hoop jumping"? No.

B)
- Is it a situtuation that the worse team must deal with to better prepare themselves? Yes.
- Is it a situation that the better team has already dealt with in better preparing themselves? Yes.


Group A are at the mercy of pleasing the league. That's anti-competition. Group B are directly involved at improving or worsening their situation with NO LEAGUE INFLUENCE. That's the reality of competition.

The moral of the story (expressed on page 1 of this thread forward)? Rise and fail on your own with no influence from the league rules to help or hinder you. The rules are all that we ask to be fair. The rules are all that I've compared in all activities that must be fair. Is football fair? Yes! Is real life unfair? Sometimes, yes!

Arena.net is 100% in control of ensuring that GW PvP be fair. They may choose to add anti-competitive mechnics, but the control is theirs to unfairly limit or aid my skillful abilities. What can Arena.net do about a team's inability to beat War Machine if they decide to pick random skills on random builds? Nothing, because good fortune, bad fortune, stupidity or genius is the player's responsibility, NOT Arena.net's responsibility. We are asking for fairness from the "league" in what they control and nothing else.

Notice the title of this thread? Notice the theme of my posts? They are all about what the "league" is in control of. If my team loses a match because of my teammate's poor play, what does that have to do with Arena.net (UAX implemented BTW)? I'll complain to him about his failure to follow the plan, but that does not mean Guild Wars (UAX on) is unfair. It just means my teammate is a scrub, and life is indeed unfair sometimes when it saddles you with scrubs. It's up to ME to do something about life's issues, not Arena.net.

Finally, weather issues? C'mon man. Is that the fault of the structure of the rules that force snow to come from the heavens? All teams know life is unpredictable. All teams prepare the best they can. Are they equal in being prepared? No. Is it the league's rule that they are FORCED to be unprepared? No. If the losing team is desparate to win in snow, let them go all out to practice in Alaska.... I don't care, but as long as there is no forced disadvantaged burned into the written rules (or in GW's case, the written code) that force a disadvantage (or advantage) for one side over the other before a match begins.

How many teams does the league itself provide domed stadiums for? The best grass? Is there a consistent top-of-the-line quality throughout the league, provided by the league? The league can't control the weather, but they sure as hell can control how the weather hits the players...and do you see anything being done to "balance" that?

You've said that sports are fair, arredondo. They aren't. If they were, McNabb would have been given some leeway on the clock after he started vomiting on the field in the last SuperBowl. lol

Your examples of design options are limiting the options of the other team? What do you mean "re-locking" of skills? You're saying that there should be pvp types where I can spend 3k faction on an elite, then go in there and have it locked away again? And skills that only a small fraction of the populace could ever use are the most detrimental things they could add to the game.

Because you wanted me to respond to the idea, not the examples, I have this to say. There are just as many options for UAX as there are for locks. Look at games where things are fair for all competitors, and see how many options they have. Options for a locked system are narrow and only serve to make the competition more time-based than skill-based, which is the opposite of what the game was advertised to be.