The Update: Why We See More Complaints Than Praise

Not all sports are fair in every way. That is irrelevant: Shouldn't we strive to make things fair? Should we simply tolerate all problems in Guild Wars if similar problems exist elsewhere?

Focus on (what is hopefully) the goal: Making Guild Wars a better game. Screw professional sports.

I believe the main point of the sports analogy was that sports aim to be fair. Everything in the league and in the rules aims towards an even playing ground, and the only unfair things are those that cannot be controlled (finances, geography, etc.)

The unfair points you have brought up like weather and whatnot are are paralleled by things like lag which we have no control over. It doesn't matter that the league doesn't go out and provide domes to create fair weather conditions for everybody, we can't expect them to expend ridiculous amounts of time and money to create fairness (just like we can't expect A.net to go out and ensure good connections for all their players). But that's a big difference from having the league actually put in rules that work against fair play.

The issue of UAX is something that can be controlled and made fair, and if we are to hold to the sports analogy, would be akin to making rules that football players have to unlock certain plays by winning games before they can use them.

However, I still contend that GuildWars does not aim to be a sport, anyhow. The crux of this argument, as I have said before, should be "what would the most players find fun?"

There is no way to logically prove that UAX should or shouldn't be there outside of answering this question. It's a waste of time to discuss the validity of all these comparisons to other competitive venues.

The city and the owners pay for those things amigo, not the league. That's why my home of Los Angeles is without a team... we won't pay for a stadium and the owners are greedy enough to try and hold out.

Bottom line, the rules are written to be fair to each team and its players in regards to gear access needed to succeed when they step out to play. That's the only thing I've been discussing, and you bring up everything but something anywhere close to this point. Competitive activities are to ensure their RULES do not give biased treatment one way or the other. Stop talking about things OUTSDE the league's control and you'll finally get it.

Strike 71.... you're out.

Largely. It's useful to explore and compare to some extent. This thread has certainly had a ton of rehashing of ideas beyond the point of usefulness. For many of the ideas, anyway.

And what "gear" are you referring to? What gear in GW are you talking about? Skills? Armor? Weapons? Upgrades?

Sports leagues supply the players with the basic gear (i.e., a helmet and pads, basically). GuildWars supplies players with helmets, armor, weapons, and starter skills. That's the basic gear needed to play the game and the basic gear required for the player to be successful in some form or another.

Upgrades and advanced skills are advanced equipment.

Why don't sports have advanced upgrades and skills while GW does?

Because GW is a video game.

Why are you pointing this out? I don't understand the relevance.

Im sorry there is no grey area in this instance like you are trying to do. Either you are willing to accept that any amount of grind is acceptable and dont care because you most likely have everything you want or want an advantage over anyone else new. Conversly you are against the idea for a grind in a pvp environment and are for the reduction to removal of any such format limting the player's options within pvp. Pick one and stop dancing around the issue. Trying to a fanboy stance by backing a system that is counter intuitive, because of the developer work invovled in it isnt really a position beyond saying, "hey look, i like the game as it is now". Yet, you do not state this either.

The amount of time the system has existed is irrelevant. Simple calculations will lead towards any estimated time before any new person is competitive and how long it will take before an older person unlocks the few things they dont have yet. This current system is more of a grind, mainly because of the nature of the unlock system within pve, allowing for skipping of content and selective progression to bypass the larger portion of the time it takes to aquire the majority of the skills via quests. This style of progression cannot be rated in as simple caculations as the pvp rewards system. As i stated earlier, this is akin to a stalling tatic found within pay to play services and does not make sense within the mechanics of the pvp system.

Both the pvp and pve systems are flawed inherently, however the only "tuning" that can occur that will make any difference lies within the pve system adjusting the drop rates and quantity of unique monsters further. The pvp system, is inherently flawed as it basically requires the player to own the game for many months before being able to have the basic ability to perform and be flexible. It is further flawed as the two system styles are nearly completely incompatible with each other as it stands now, due to the stasis that the somewhat permenant pve characters get placed into for pvp situations, while the pvp characters are recycled freely as new equipment and skills are generated for them at creation.

54 days spent in front of the computer is neither casual or sane for any "casual" gamer that this is supposadly aimed at, especially when it is just the tip of the iceberg and only applies to the skills. Again ill restate that, if you argue if that number is too high, for any reason, then you are for the removal of the system for the pvp environment because of the eventual accrual of all items and abilities within the game. The amount of time spent to get to that point is irrelevant as people will eventually all be at that point among the people playing now. That does not change the fact that anyone new joining under such a system will be at a distinct disadvantage and will continue to be at a disadvantage throughout all of the upcomming expansions as they continually play catch-up with all of the so called "vets" of the game. That is why the system is flawed, much like it is in other games that are predominantly pay to play schemes, but the difference is that the other games are more pve centric, while this game is more pvp centric.

He's just grasping at straws. He's trying to make a case (by using the word 'basic' that he got on my case about, lol), that you can't compare a competitive activity like in sports to the competitive activity in GW that is PvP because of how gear works.

Again, the specific comparisons with PvP and ANY competitive activity, sports or otherwise, is ONLY about what the fairness in the rules (created by the 'league') regarding access to gear options. All other competitions have the rules fairly applied, Guild Wars PvP chooses instead an anti-competition system that gives inherent advantages to one side that's favored (due to hundreds of hours of hoop jumping) before battle even begins.

You talk about gear in sports as if its the bottom of the barrel. AGAIN the sports 'league' has specifications on the max allowed stats of gear (like Guild Wars), but the sports leagues don't make you shoot 10,000 free throws in order to access the max stat gear! How many times does this have to be pounded into your head?

Teams and players have access to MAX STAT gear. The league doesn't restrict anyone from using MAX STAT gear. If you want to use MAX STAT gear, just use it! Why go through some ridiculous play mechnic that forces hundreds of hours of grinding just to be able to put on the MAX STAT catcher's mask if you play baseball for the Dodgers? Are you suggesting that they begin with masks made of tin foil, and they should 'unlock' the real deal only when the league is pleased?

No, and so should it be for GW PvP if you are in anyway a fan of competition being only about the skillful play and preparation of one side vs. the other. NO influence by league rules that cause an uneeded imbalance. Let the players determine themsleves who is the better competitior. Don't support the league decision to force one to start one with a tin foil catcher's mask while the other is in a Rawling's pro mask.

Don't support the league decision to force one to start one with a ten skill icons and one rune while the other is choosing fom 147 skill icons and twelve runes. Don't even try to say that all is right with that rule structure if you truly are interested in fair competition. 'Fair' meaning... the PLAYERS determine victory, not league influence.

Please stop your non-sensical arguments. You've widely missed the mark every single time you've responded since the multi-choice question.

I'm going to have to say everyone's missed eachothers mark, at least in eachother's eyes.

Everyone in this thread has made decent points, most all of them valid. When you get right down to it you're arguing now over OPINIONS, and that's all.

He isn't "grasping at straws" he's responding to what you people posted. If you don't want a response, why post it? Doesn't make sense to me. Everyone by this point is doing the same thing, and all of you have thrown out your points so many times that they hardly mean anything anymore. It's gotten to the point where you've all heard them so many times the only things you can say to one another are "he's just grasping at straws" or "you've missed the mark every time", while giving no backup or justification to these statements.

This argument died a long time ago (or rather, the thousands of arguments all going at once). There is no "right" or "wrong" in this situation. If there was we'd have found it by now.

So...can we just you know, kill this thread already?

Or, you can take your own advice by not posting that you don't like people posting. We can all debate opinion, and we can also establish facts. Most of the confusion has been on the latter, which is the "mark" that I'm referring to.

I asked he stop the non-sensical arguments in my last post, but he can freely post whatever he wishes as will I. I like the mental exercise of debating for clarity, especially for what I think is a worthy issue...I suspect Siren does as well. Tired of reading? You are in full control of which threads you enter or not.

here is what i think is a logical statement which you can flame if you wish.

the more CASUAL the gamer is the less they will need all, most or even a majority of the
skills
runes
upgrades
to have his/her version of FUN

So casual players have fun losing to hardcore players who have grinded more and therefore have more gear? Somehow I don't think that's true for most casual players. We want to have the same gear as hardcore 24-7 playing koreans and let skill decide the outcome of the match, and we don't want to grind as long as they do to do it, either.

The relevance is that GuildWars is a video game--a fantasy hack n slash, no less. We're going to be finding enchanted items. We're going to be acquiring better weaponry. We're going to be finding/buying upgrades for our abilities, health, energy, etc. It's how the game works. You're never going to see those types of parallels in professional sports, apart from players corking their bats or taking steroids to enhance their strength, and even then, it's a stretchy, limited parallel to begin with.

To point to professional sports and say that since those players are granted the basic equipment (only helmets and pads, let's be realistic; they're not being granted runes that enhance their health by 100 points, and nothing remotely close to it), and then imply that GuildWars should be identical is missing the point entirely, because there is nothing remotely resembling a Crippling Axe of Fortitude in the real world, in professional sports. If there was, it sure as hell wouldn't be considered basic equipment like a helmet and pads...just like in GuildWars. And if there was, it wouldn't be friendly competition anymore, now would it?

The only reason we have such advanced equipment in this game is because it's a video game, because it's a hyperreality of real life...because it's not real life. Sports, for all intents and purposes, as exaggerated as they may seem sometimes (Mike Tyson, anyone?), are still real life.

I find it amusing when people bring in real life to apply to video games, because largely, it never applies, especially when talking about how characters interact with each other from a gameplay perspective.

It makes me wonder just who's getting compared here. Are we, the gamers, getting compared to the athletes? Or are our characters getting compared?

Comparing us, the gamers, to the athletes seems absurd, because athletes train rigorous, physically demanding schedules to be able to do what they do. A gamer does what? Sits on his ass and hits buttons, and develops timing. That's all. Actually performing in a sport is exponentially more involved than what any of us do in any game.

And yet some think it's perfectly reasonable to establish a parallel between the two? Perhaps on the grounds that as we don't continue to hone our skills, that they will degrade? Sounds a bit more reasonable, but again, the extent to which the respective skills of the athletes and the gamer will degrade is radically different. If a gamer doesn't play a game for a year, the decline isn't terribly dramatic and the gamer can "warm up" in a relatively short amount of time. If an athlete doesn't play a game for a year, however, their re-training process will be exponentially longer than the gamer's; some have taken years.

Maybe comparing our characters to the athletes? Seems a bit more reasonable, given that athletes get equipped, and our characters, do, as well. But again, how sound is this parallel? If an athlete doesn't play and practice for long periods of time, his or her physical abilities begin to dwindle. Does this happen to bits of coding? If we don't play our character for long periods of time, are that character's abilities going to wane?

No.

This isn't grasping at straws; this is pointing out that these two things are radically different in so many ways that it makes absolutely no sense to try to compare them on any level. To say that all competition depends upon one golden rule is effectively establishing a parallel between the competitors, and the systems in which those competitors participate. The competitors here are not even in the same league (they're not even in the same sport). The systems are nowhere near similar.

To say that the leagues grant players "MAX STAT gear" is vastly minimizing the fundamental differences between real life sports and video games. A top-of-the-line Nike shoe is simply not comparable to Underworld items. You're talking about a shoe versus a souped-up sword with damage mods out the wazoo that requires 13 swordsmanship to wield appropriately. "Max stat" is a simplistic, black and white label that ultimately can only be used when everything is viewed in those simplistic, black and white, "the world must be this one way and this one way only, all the way through," tunnel vision points of view.

Neither.

Your first statement is inaccurate because I don't have everything...not by a longshot, and I don't want an advantage over anyone else.

But your second statement is also inaccurate, because I'm not entirely against the idea of an unlock system. In fact, I think it's a pretty nice idea.

But because I'm not sucking the c-cks of the hardcore PvPers who are doing little more than whining and complaining without suggesting any real solutions, and because I'm reluctant to completely excise an entire system only two weeks after its conception, without at least first exploring alternatives that don't involve extreme nuclear options...I'm a fanboy? That seems to be what you're insinuating here.

As I've come to understand it, fanboys are rabid devotees of a particular idea or ideology, and demonstrate absolutely no comprehension of (or consideration to) anything going on outside of their particular, narrow-minded point of view about what they want.

I honestly don't think I've been behaving like that by any stretch of the imagination, but if merely trying to find a reasonable solution to an issue that some players are having a problem with, a solution that isn't the gaming equivalent of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, means I'm a fanboy, then I'm proud to say I'm a fanboy of the worst kind. If the alternative is mindless ranting and raving about how much this game sucks? Please, please, please call me a fanboy. I'd rather be a fanboy than an ungrateful little shit.

But you are correct when you say I just don't care. I don't care about winning. I don't care about losing. But you know what I do care about?

I care about playing the game. I care about having fun. I care about enjoying myself, about jumping into a game where nothing else matters apart from busting up those Charr, or wiping out a hive of Moss Spiders, and not letting something as trivial as an unlock system get in the way of me having fun. I don't mean to get on a soapbox here, but a few others have, so why not. Regardless of what is in the game, some of us are going to dislike it. Regardless of the future state of the game, somebody here is going to bitch and moan about it. It's just how things work.

But should we let ourselves be miserable? F-ck no. Pardon the language, of course, but in the end, we can either sit here and whine all day long about everything in the game, or we can actually make something of the time we have and do something fun in-game.

Now which is it gonna be?

Are we going to bitch and moan about every little thing?

Or do we all agree that there's a group of White Mantle outside of Quarrell Falls that needs to get a serious beatdown? lol

not at all

the truly casual player will grab a template and do a bit of low level stuff against other low level people and have fun doing it

refer to Stumpys pve brother who as a casual noon to pvp won enough faction that he is continuing on this route to unlock several specific items rather than chance in pve drops

this shows that a noob doesnt have to lose by definition

casual is low level play for fun and not worry where your standing is or rank

competition is where winning is everything instead of playing as a game for fun

casual is a pickup game for fun (since sports metaphores abound) as opposed to the big leagues

there may be some *true level playing field* people in top everything dropping into the lower level arenas just to show what the noobs can aspire to while slaughtering them but those are hopefully in the minority of the pvp community

Where exactly in anything that i said have anything to do with pvp crossing over into pve? Then you go into insults as you have no real argument. The unlock system is fine for pve, it is not for pvp and the two systems as they are now are incompatible with each other. You have stated nothing regarding the seperation and unlocking for the pvp realm from the pve realm. It appears that you read the first few lines of what i type and ignore the rest.

What is it going to be, is that ive trashed the mantle in every way not involving an arrow past ember light camp and could give a damm what they do. What i do care about is when i look down the road the game is taking and i dont like what i see. Others are in a similar position as they see the system as it is now and understand the affects it has over time. What will happen is that people will just stop playing the game because the mechanics lead to a grind, the pvp mechanics does not lead towards alot of replay value, or they are fed up with the bugs in both the pvp and the pve realms. There are most likely more than that among those would and have left the game, while the rest are content to either ignore the issues at hand or dont/havent played enough to see them and understand them. Playing is not limited to this game either to understand the mechanics of what is going on here and to why it is not beneficial.

My argument is what it's always been, and what I've been repeating throughout this thread, including my previous post:

The UAX system, while attractive, is the nuclear option here. It is the last-ditch decision, one that should be made only when all other options have been thoroughly exhausted, including any tweaking/streamlining of current systems in play. As it stands now, the current PvP unlocking system (which I was talking about in my previous reply) takes longer than most (some) would like it. Personally, I don't think 3k faction points for an Elite skill is appropriate at all, either.

But just because I don't think that the current faction point requirements are appropriate doesn't mean I have to jump over to the other side entirely, screaming for UAX, treating it like it's the only thing left to do...

...because it's not. Far from it, in fact. And if I'm insulting someone here, so be it, but viewing everything here in total black and white is not going to solve anything, like others have said in the past. Despite what you may think, I am one of those people in the middle, Phades, one of those people who enjoys the unlocking system, but understands it has issues, but at the same time, understands that UAX is an extreme that simply is too extreme at this point in time.

Consider the following:

1) Currently, the faction point requirements of the PvP unlocking system are steep.

2) Currently, the faction point priests can only be found in PvE areas.

3) Currently, it is very difficult for pure PvP characters to unlock anything without going into PvE.

The solution?

1) Adjust the faction point requirements, and adjust the faction point rewards.

2) Place faction point priests in PvP-only (pure PvP) arenas.

3) Pure PvP characters will find it easier and less time-consuming to unlock PvP abilities.

Why not try that before telling us that UAX is the only option available?

False.

And you entirely missed my point with the White Mantle reference. Either we can sit here bitching about every little thing that bothers us, or we can go play the game and have fun.

I have no problem with looking down the road. I muse over the future state of any game just as much as the next guy. Starcraft: Ghost, perfect example. The game got delayed by what, three years now? Switched developers? I saw the dev change and became skeptical, even cancelled my pre-order. It's natural to have qualms and worries, surely. I don't disagree with that for a second.

But what I don't agree with doing is looking at a 2-week old system and immediately screaming hellfire and damnation, because that's jumping the gun, in the purest sense of the phrase. Personal opinions aside, if someone were to say that (screaming their pretty little heads off, wanting drastic Hiroshima-magnitude changes) about UAX if it were instituted, you'd tell them they were reacting prematurely, right? Same thing here, just flipped around (that pesky "point of view" thing again).

It's not a matter of ignoring the issues at hand, and it's not a matter of not playing enough. It's simply a matter of waiting to see what happens before whining about how something isn't working quite right, or how something won't be working quite right in the future.

I'm not suggesting we ignore anything.

I'm suggesting we all try to keep things in perspective.

You dont consider the following at all.

Pve character gains nothing from pvp. The player only gains something if they abandon the pve character. The premis of the typical pve environment is to have a scalable set of gains in order to face new challenges within the environment. This game has a fixed gain scale and a limited environment, that suggests more tuning and balance for a limited pvp setting. This also ignores the mechanics of the attribute refund points, which also need to get changed and only hamper pve characters. The points should always be available in a non-mission area and not available within a mission area. (For clarity, mission areas being anywhere that is not a map movement location option) Prior to trying out a new build i typically found myself conversing with most of the guys, in my gaming circle that has existed for several years now and has no RL connection, how i could use one or two of them with me to get back the refund points so i could respec before going into pvp or pve situation in order to avoid getting screwed in the long term after they log for the day. Unfortunatly none of them play anymore for most of the reasons ive outlined in earlier posts.

The manner of faction gain is easily observed and can be calculated into real time with no real hassle. There is no need for a wait and see approach as there is no guesswork. It can be easily rated in game hours how long it will take for a new person to get up to speed until they stop playing catch up with the rest of the player base in this system. The current quantity of time involved, even under perfect circumstances, leads to the premis that new people will always be behind the curve as new content comes out. I havent even owned the retail copy of the game for 54 days, but the time i do spend in the game are long sessions per day played.

Looking at a skill for a possible build then considering the hours needed to get it is not fun. Playing against the same copied build sets is not fun. Playing with and against flawed AI, is not fun; especially after playing through the game multiple times on the pve side, because there is no real manipulation beyond the point and click style interface. It becomes more of a job than a game when the number of wins is considered as well. It still does not address the newer player versus the older player scenario where the newer player comes in one of two flavors typically. The first being the guy that knows nothing and has no way to learn than blindly moving through the pvp gains or the pve environment. This is your typical pve clueless PuG guy. The second being someone who looks to others for information without any real experience and taking the shortest path to copy the most effective build percieved. Neither of which are interesting to play with or against, because neither have the knowledge of why the builds work or dont work. Allowing for the experimentation of everything possible is the only real way to learn in any reasonable amount of time for a player.

The fact that pure pvp areas dont exist yet and that is something im advocating. Pvp only areas is a rehaul and scrapping of the entire system as it stands now, which you are trying to argue against. Yet when you state "false" you have no real way to prove it, nor have you shown it by commenting on the solutions i and others have set forth, instead of arguing the possible flaws within the logic behind the solution. To which in turn when your points of argument are contested you have resorted to personal style attacks, dismissal of the comment, or ignoring of the content completely.

Waiting to see while playing = not playing enough to understand.

considering that the developers have invested many combined years of careful thought into this game to make it something different and it is only about 2 months old i dont think they are going to suddenly scrap the core ideas of their game.

especially since the reviews continue to be positive for the most part

the ultra hard core competitor pvp person is in a tiny minority here and i dont think you are going to be accomodated in your demands (reasonable as you think they are)

the only thing to do is find a game you enjoy playing AS IT IS or wait to see what this evolves into .

and no i do not think this is perfect as there is a whole wish list i have.

but i consider the game AS IT IS to be enough fun to continue playing it instead of yelling for my ideal game

PvE ascended character (level 20) is the one most likely to do loads of PvP, correct? Level 20 Ascends are also the characters who find it difficult to amass refund points during conventional questing, correct? Further, Level 20 Ascends, with the majority of PvE complete, have PvP left, correct?

Solution to the refund point dilemma for Level 20 Ascends (and really, any PvErs who are doing PvP):

Granting refund points through PvP. There's another thread on this, with a few good suggestions. Either through kills, victories, or something as simple as buying refund points with faction points. This, coupled with adjustments to the faction point requirements (a reduction), and adjustments to faction point payouts (an increase), seems to alleviate the problem you've just described.

And this could also be used for those Level 20s who are looking to nab more skill points (that "I'm level 20 and am ___% away from earning my next skill point").

So, UAX is immediately the only solution because other players have been playing longer, and have reached that "glass ceiling"? I don't see the precedent there.

You know...the new player you're describing here...we all fit into that category before, even during the BWEs, even with UAX. We all were looking toward each other for help, seeing what everyone was using.

That tendency in a new player to look to others for assistance isn't a result of a limited skillset, and it isn't the result of UAX. That tendency in a new player to look to others for assistance is a result of being a new player.

To illustrate, when you're teaching someone how to play Super Smash Bros. Melee, and it's their very first time playing...are you going to bombard them with everything in the game, or are you going to first show them the combinations with the joystick and the A button?

I've done it both ways, and the results are far better when you start them with just the basics. I could very well launch into an analysis of Wavedashing, fast-falling into an edge-grab to guard, Mid-air cancels, etc...but what benefit would that be for the new player? It would confuse the hell out of them--and actually, it does confuse the hell out of them.

Same principle here. UAX (the GW equivalent of dumping everything on a new player from the get-go) is not guaranteed to help the player improve. If anything, they'll get more frustrated, because instead of being shown a dozen or so techniques, they'll be getting almost 200. Instead of having to deal with only a dozen or so techniques, they'll be facing pages of new techniques.

The chances of that actually improving their game? Very slim. They'll be overwhelmed. This is something long established in video gaming. Somebody who's not played the game before will have difficulty if they are immersed entirely in the full breadth of that game's techniques.

And here I just commented on the actual idea, as well as the logic behind it.

I've not made a PvP template in a while, but if PvP characters can only access those PvP areas (if those limitations are still in play), they are technically PvP only areas from that PvP character point of view. You have PvEs in there, sure, but when they (the PvPs) can't access the PvE areas...that does make those arenas effectively pure PvP areas. Do you get what I'm saying?

And since PvPs are limited to those arenas, placing faction point priests in there as well is a perfectly reasonable solution. I thought I had explained that fairly well in my previous post.

This above paragraph is irrelevant rhetoric. When I state "false" I do have a way to prove it, by replying to your entire post, and doing point-by-point, no less. If that doesn't show you I do read your entire posts, then you're blind. lol. I have replied to your points, regardless of what you may believe. And I have been commenting on the actual solutions. When I say UAX is a bad idea, because it would be the nuclear option, I'm commenting on UAX, which is the solution you and others have been suggesting. I don't know what your point of the above paragraph is...but I don't think you really have a point with it. Seems to be more a transparent bluff than anything else, so I'm going to go ahead and call you on it.

No, waiting to see while playing = waiting to see while playing. I understand perfectly fine. And because I understand, that's why I'm saying we need to examine other options before dropping the bomb.

You dont seem to understand that a pvp area, that im suggesting, is for pvp only characters, where pve characters wouldnt enter at all. Pve characters would have their own pvp settings that could be what we know now or more integrated like the first tombs event or the pre-searing initiation. Make them as seperate worlds as it were, as they are in the systems that govern their advancement.

The ceiling isnt made of glass, it continues to rise as the age of the game rises. If you cant or havent seen that in every other game on the market, then you havent been paying attention. You are trying to observe the game as it is now in a stasis, while im looking at it 9 months to 1 year or more down the road where these issues will come up. When they do come up the forums will be flodded with how can a new guy compete posts, instead of asking do we need a system that requires a treadmill now? This is what you dont understand. That is why waiting to see while playing = not playing enough to understand.

To be honest the new players i described only one of them i didnt like, because they are unwilling to learn on their own. To encourage that it is better to set everything out on the table before them and let them try everything as they see the need for it. Telling someone about advanced manuvers is very different than allowing them to see the effect from said manuvers. Coordination and timing aside from fighting games, that is a stronger premis than stating that you must only punch or kick at this stage, but dont worry about getting beat by a throw that you dont know how to deal with or knowing how to block. It may seem like dummed down examples, but to me they are just that simple.

Like i said before, the pvp system has flaws that cant be fixed under the current system, while the pve system is easier to tune to cater to that style. You have not stated any solution other than what is fine now, will be fine forever. The logistical problem of the actual location of the priests is more of an oversight than a design issue. This is a very similar instance where rune traders exist in the arena staging areas. Pvp character doesnt have money, pvp character doesnt earn money normally, pvp character can only earn money by selling a sigil to a player or the trader. So what exactly is the point of rune traders in the pvp areas? Also the storage people are pointless as well to a pvp character, unless a pve character sends the pvp character something. Which doesnt make sense when anything new that is unlocked can just be gained by scrapping and remaking that pvp character.

That'd take weeks, nay months of programming, all the while the whiners would continue to complain about the "long" response times of A.net...

I'm going to shamelessly point out a couple of threads I've started with the intent of making the game more fun.

Ideas on how to achieve fair PvP without using UAX:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=27583

An idea for a voluntary handicapp system to make PvP between people of different levels more fun:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=29537

I imagine no one will like either idea, since that seems to be the reaction by and large, but I'd like to emphasize that I hope everyone here has sight of the goal: Making Guild Wars more fun.

I have nothing against debate for the mental exercise of it, either, but I'm pretty sure that's not what everyone is here for.


While I agree that it's good to give any new system a fair chance, I don't think you're going to accomplish much by saying so, Siren. The people who hate it it the most will say so (and not completely unreasonably, either, if they are the people who hate it the most); most people will give it a chance anyway.


And a fine idea, but do understand that you are counseling the people who hate it the most. Almost by definition, those the people who will come complain on forums the strongest.

And at the same time, it's never too early to suggest improvements. And different people will want different things. I'd actually prefer that people at list explore different options and indicate how much they like different options, rather than merely saying that there's only one way to do things. That's never true.

And that would divide the game community from an actual game design standpoint. The division we see now is a personality issue.

...personally, I don't mind at all facing against PvPers, even with my PvE characters. The more, the merrier.

Plus, there is a community here who enjoys both, so what would happen to them if a total division like that were implemented? Yes, they could still PvP with their PvE characters...but what if they actually enjoyed facing all types of players? They're the gray area here that's unfortunately stuck between the black and white, and yet another reason why there is no reasonable black and white solution here.

Right now, if UAX were implemented, new players will be facing 150 skills all at once. That's a shock enough for someone just starting out in PvP (or really, in anything). But in upcoming years...new players are potentially looking at having upwards of 200 skills dropped on them, because the way you see it, UAX is the only way to go? You say it will be better for the new player to have everything given to them all at once?

You see that as enabling them. I see that as downright smothering them with much more than they could handle. I don't think you're considering just what kind of an intimidation factor that would be--and if you are, I think you're vastly underestimating it...to the degree of alienating new players just as badly as any unlock system could.

Again, you're making vague claims that appear little more than transparent bluffs. I've not been saying at all that what we have now is fine now, and will be fine forever. I've been repeating ad nauseum that needing 3k faction points for an Elite skill is absurdly unfair. You've said how that's arguing for UAX, but I've shown you that it isn't. I've explicitly stated that I am not supportive for UAX, because even in the future, that will not solve anything.

The implications for new players in a year's time are just as dangerous and haphazard as an unlock system, because with an unlock system, they're starting behind the 8-ball because they don't have the actual skills, fine.

But with UAX and them getting 200 skills all at once? They're behind the 8-ball because they don't know where to begin...and for a new player to feel intimidated/alienated...is not good for business. Surely, you agree on that point?

But given how instrumental the priests are instrumental in a PvP character's development, I think placing them on the same level as rune traders and storage agents is a bit foolish.

People are complaining that they'd rather not go through PvE to acquire their skills, and that's exactly what the suggestion addressed. Design issue, oversight, whatever, something's screwy, and it can be fixed very easily. I'm not even sure why you're replying to that, anyway, though, because you don't even sound like you have any real problem with it ("it" being the suggestion).

And JoDiamonds, you're getting to be one of my favorite people here. You know that, right?

An easy parralell to this game in terms of options to form a build would be magic the gathering. Every expansion tends to have more than 150 different cards released, or at least in that ballpark in the past. Some have been less others more, but as the cards became public knowledge people digested and formatted new setups integrating the new stuff with the already massive old stuff within just a couple weeks. It is not massive nor overly complicated to look at a puzzle whole then observe how the pieces fit together.

You havent proven how its not arguing for UAX style system for pvp. You merly feign at that a problem exists and that the problematic system needs to stay.

Personally i dont see any difference between the placement of such characters within the game. Its either a short sighted flaw or an intended design concept forcing someone to play both. In essence by the way the rewards are listed for the priests, id wager that not enough gvg battles were occuring and this was a halfmeasure to help stimulate the desire to participate within them, while at the same time acknowledging that killing off 4 people is easier and scaling back the earlier arena formats with the tombs being the middle ground. Conceptually that works more than insinuating that the faction system was really a bonus to a player who was pvp exclusive.

As far as fragmenting the community, it is already fragmented in a way as how guild ranking and structure is concerned. This is more of an issue of human nature than a game mechanic however and there really isnt way to fix or force people how to act within a game. People who are dedicated to pvp with their guild doesnt really care about what johnny pve does advancing through the game who tries out pvp here and there and might join up with another guild along the way. They quite honestly play two different games and id say its fairly unlikely the two would meet up unless it was within a pve mission while the pvp guy tries to skill cap something for whatever reason. In which case they are both in the pve realm with pve characters anyway. The fragmenting option saves the ability to retain the existing system while also allowing for full experimentation by everyone and not interfering with each other. The pvp and pve systems feel forced upon each other as a design requirement, much in the same way storage and rune traders feel forced within the pvp staging areas.

The worst fragmenting a community will face over time is the turning away of new players. It is worse as the game stops growing in the playerbase and at that point it is the begining of the end as the older players find fewer people to play against among each other as they move on to other games over time. That is far worse than accepting an explosion of options now and in the future for those who desire to test, compete, and experiement with said options. Instead of just getting past egos and learning the ropes, in the future a new person will have the hurdle of just getting up to speed with everyone else and could quite possibly never catch up.

There's a critical flaw in your argument here:

The "combat" in MtG is nowhere near as intense or fast-paced as the combat in GuildWars. In fact, the respective pace/speeds of the two games are almost the complete opposite. True, in highly competitive play in MtG, surely cards are getting slapped down fairly quickly, but two points need consideration there:

1) You can find even faster speeds at top-tier play in GuildWars.

2) A new player won't be playing in highly competitive play.

But, even with a new player starting out in the "bottom tiers," as it were, doesn't mean they won't be experiencing the breakneck speed of GW battles.

Purely on the style of skill acquisition, MtG is a perfect comparison. The layout, the collections, everything points to building a deck of cards in GW.

But where GW differs from MtG is an issue of speed. It's closer to FPS and Smash Bros Melee in this regard, which is why it's foolish to say UAX will be better for the new player because of the similarities to MtG, because GW combat runs at a speed you'd find in Smash Bros. Melee...not MtG. And we all know how a new player reacts to having every moveset in Smash Bros. Melee dumped on them, and then being thrown out into a combat situation that moves at speeds MtG rarely does, if at all.

Every time you say this, it means less and less, Phades, because every time you repeat this, I explicitly show how I've not been arguing for UAX, how I'm in the gray area between the two black and white extremes, how I feel UAX is the nuclear option that should only be seriously considered when all other options have failed.

It seems like just because I can see why some would have a problem with steep faction point requirements, and am willing to work out a compromise of tweaking those requirements so any player can unlock skills in a shorter period of time, you want to say that what I'm saying is no different than what arredondo has been whining for.

And that's utterly false. The implications of what I'm saying (streamlining the current system so that it's more user-friendly) is something entirely different than what the arguments for UAX are (scrapping the unlock system).

You keep repeating this mantra, but just repeating it doesn't make it true, particularly if it continues to be an empty statement that I can disprove easily.

And personally I don't really see how this is really all that relevant to begin with. I don't see you making any real points with this paragraph, other than what seems to be a meandering dissertation on rune traders in PvP arenas.

Oh, now I remember why this is relevant: because pure PvPers were whining that they had to play PvE once to access faction point priests.

Simple solution: priests can be added to the PvP arenas.

-or-

Simple solution: they can play PvE once.

It's not a huge issue when you really think about it.

And if the division we see is actually a personality issue...how is it the game's fault at all? Further, if it is a personality issue, how is that a precedent for UAX? How is it a precedent for anything, really? This goes back to one of my points much earlier in this thread:

At what point do we draw the line between what a game is designed and contructed to be, and what gamer personalities want it to be?

Your assessment here is still going on pure theory, though, the theory that new players will be able to adjust with little to no problem with a barrage of 200 or so skills and techniques as soon as they start up the game.

Time and time again through the history of gaming, this has been proven false. The countless starter tutorials across a variety of genres and gameplay types is testament to this.

Many games are pick up n play, sure, but that's to a very certain extent, because in a game like Smash Bros Melee, which is very much pick up n play, if you bombard the new player with every single technique and move in the game, regardless of explaining what the effects are or not...their head will spin. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a gaming fact. Even something like Bomberman suffers from this issue.

Hmmm, Maybe because arenanet says it's a competive online role playing game? Much like, chess.

I really wonder what goes through Gaile Gray's head when she reads a lot of the posts on a lot of the forums.
--

Oh, and Siren we're not upset because you have to beat the game once, We're complaining because it's not the solution we've been asking for, and that it takes 16-18x times longer to unlock a skill point through PvP, than it does through PvE.

my problem with pvp is, that it interferes with my pve game in a very intrusive way . Ring of Fire takes long enough, still each time I might be able to try it the Hall of heroes is not in my region and I have to call it off. I thought that over time i might have more luck but for now I can't allow myself to stay awake till my region has the HoH @23.00 and then go on playing fissure of woe till 4.a.m. And I don't see how this is going to change. A part of the game eludes me not because of restrictions of skill, but simply because of my personal time limits. That angers me in a way. So anything that ArenaNet does to make the HoH more random again is fine by me. By forcing players to get items from PvE first could very well close the gap between those who play for fun and those who play out of a doubtful understanding of competition.

So Chess is a competitive online role playing game? I always thought it was a straight-up boardgame with no stat building, character development, etc. ~_^

And the solution you've been asking for is...UAX? So far, I've not seen any real precedent for a full utilization of UAX. All I've seen is tunnel vision complaints and tunnel vision solutions.

I can categorically say that by and large, this point is incorrect. If anything the OPPOSITE is true. As I've said, I've been involved in many competitive activities over many years (athletic and gaming), and consistently the way people have improved the fastest by FAR is to actually play the game the way it was meant to be played. This isn't simply an opinion I'm throwing around out of nowhere. It's a certified observed fact.

There are several reasons for this. Yes, we all start off ignorant of rules and properties of equipment, traits, etc. and how it all flows well together, but when you are learning it in the context of what you need to do when you are in serious matches, it comes together that much smoother. A person spends 100 hours finishing PvE with a Mesmer/Necro. Archane Echo'd Chaos Storm (AoE) and a ton of Death minions can get you pretty far on their own.

You take that to PvP and it doesn't work. You first have to unlearn what you've been doing before you can re-learn how it can be useful in certain PvP situations. Additionally, builds you thought were near worthless all of a sudden have more value when you consider that you are up against the human mind as opposed to the more predictable A.I. of PvE. So unless you are reading the forums to tell you exactly what seems to work/not work (so far) in PvP, you are simply spending time catching up to other strong PvP players.

Now, consider UAX. Take a player spent 100 hours in a UAX environment playing nothing but PvP. He's just begun a PvP match in his 101st hour... you are trying to tell me he won't be faaaaar more skilled for competition than the player who spent his first 100 hours in PvE (assuming he got all his skills and equipment as well)? After 120 hours, after 150 hours, the PvE player is always playing to first unlearn his bad habits and then catchup to even the most basic PvP good habits (let alone advanced strategies and competitive team builds).

The PvP player is a different story. This is a player who's been in the hardcore mix for awhile now. He's seen the different solo builds, team setups, and other unique PvP situations to properly plan and execute. He actually has opponents who will not blindly standing in a Meteor Storm taking each hit.

My time spent in fighting game competitions illustrates this perfectly. Whenever someone brags on the net about how they've been practicing against the computer for months and are ready to show us how to play at the upcoming tourney, they always, 100%, without fail, get absolutely CREAMED by those who've been practicing against other real players. We always say that there's no mysterious wise man in the mountains alone who'll come down one day to show us how to play.

I was one of those people. I used to win fighting games early on against weak local competition using my favorite CPU strategies. I was fortunate enough to meet one guy who'd been in real competitions and he beat me 30 games straight. I asked him which arcade he practiced at and it literally took me about nine months to be able to consistentlyplay at a legitimately high level. Another year or so and I was competing nationally on a regular basis. All that time spent vs. the computer only slowed my growth. I had to UNLEARN before I was able to learn. Each character in these games can have 100-200 moves that, unlike Guild Wars, you have full access to at anytime. To mentally recognize and execute the use of the most appropriate move in the constantly evolving play structure is not a simple matter at all.

A few hours mastering the basic controls? OK, that has benefit, but don't tell me that you need to invest any real amount of time to improve. You want to be good at PvP? You take competition seriously? Then every hour outside of PvE and inside PvP will exponentially aid your growth. Unfortunately without UAX and access to all the skills and gear you need thereby forcing you to PvE, that growth will be artificially stunted.

Try checking out every other serious competitive activity ever made. You'll find that the "league" rules doesn't force players to jump through hoops before they can access allowed gear that your opponents might be using.

who certified it? and what qualifications does he/she have to be so presumptious?

My gaming experience is a "fair game" environement (namely Total War series) in MP. Everything is unlocked, everyone got the same "gears" and access to the same stuff.

There is no chance in hell that a casual gamer can win over a hardcore gamer. Not even with a level playing ground. No amount of gear will change that.

You might think you're skilled (or not), but hours played are their own reward in terms of training, learning the skills and combinations. Casual gamers in a team game level playing field like TW were awfully defeated all the times by more experienced players with the same exact gears.
In TW, someone with 0 game experience will lose to someone with 100 battles who will lose to someone who has played a 1000 battles. At that point it level out... But that's 1000 battles, far more than any casual gamers would consider fair (given you need 1 hour to set up and play a battle...). The equivalent of GW so called grind.
Think battle = GvG

And I think the learning curve for GW is just as step as for TW, although being a beginner in GW is less embarrassing than in TW, mainly because in GW a beginner does not face top player as in TW (no matching system there).

At least in GW, you (can) play with same level players, you don't have your game spoiled because end up with a less experienced player on one team unbalance it drastically (and yes, given TW game mechanics, 1 low experience player was enough).

While you are on your way to maxing out GW gear, you're also learning the game... And that's the real difference with a hardcore player.

And to answer arredondo; I wish TW had a "only basic units available" mode to help beginners learning the game. Way too many TW beginners are focusing on army composition and units and think they're defeated because of that instead of their own skill. If they had less units to mess around they would focus more on battle awareness, communication, timing and control.

Just like in GW?

Louis,

Algren Cole: Never question certifications. It's also a bona fide true-ism burned into the Constitution, and I understand that it almost made it as one of the Ten Commandments.

This isn't simply about a 100 hour player beating a 1000 hour player. It's all about the rate of learning that one goes through before he is able to possibly take down the top dogs.

You can't possibly believe that holding someone back from exercising ALL the options that a competitior has access to helps serious players in the long run. How does the designer know how many morsels (and which ones) would best suit me? Are all of us players being molded the exact same way? Do we all learn at different rates? How does he know whether I may come up with a strat that's even beyond what he thought of, given the chance?

I don't want to be treated like a 3 year old kid, having a little bit doled out by some unknown entity's idea of what's good for me. If the high level players are doing amazing things with full access to the tools, let me have at it too! There's no logic to treat all of us like morons who can't figure out how to put on our own shoes.

My rate of growth with limited access is STUNTED, it has a CEILING... there's no way you can deny that in this system. In UAX my rate of growth is limited only by my imagination and personal aptitude for the activity I'm playing. Slowly gaining access to needed gear and equipment works for PvE games, but in competition it's all about beating the other guy. Period. I don't need to wait for the system to show me what's best when I have a brain that can figure it all out myself.

Do I start with horrible tactics and strategies? Of course, and I'll eat it hard when I try them against a worthy HUMAN foe. You know what? That's exactly what I want! I don't want to develop bad habits, secure that it works with the CPU for hours on end. I want other opponents to help me hone my skills early on, so I'm not constantly UN-learning the junk I got away with in PvE.

And for the same reason, I need all access from the start to see the big picture as it develops based on my hard knock experiences. How can I put the puzzle together of defeating my opponents if the publisher forces me to play without all the pieces? This babysitting approach is not the answer.... save it for kindergarten, but let me be all that I can be.

Your entire post distilled into one sentence:

PvE tactics, and strategies gleaned from the PvE portion of the game are useless in PvP, so therefore UAX is the only option here.

Do you understand the problem with that statement?

Using downright dumb combinations like Arcane Conundrum+Backfire, Shadow of Fear+Empathy and/or Spirit Shackles, etc., is not exclusive to PvE players. It's not as if since someone PvPs 4 billion hours in their life, they're going to use tactics that transcend everything you could ever see in PvE.

See, the problem here is not any gameplay system. The problem here is player attitudes toward other players. The hardcore PvPers treat PvE (situations, players, and tactics) like it's nursery school. PvE is not nursery school at all, because players can (and do--my own guild is testament to this) develop successful strategies for PvP based on PvE experiences. To say that the only way to better one's game is to PvP religiously is absurd. In fact, it's more elitist nonsense than a respectable viewpoint.

And really, I've not been seeing anything other than elitist nonsense coming from you, arredondo.

You've been consistently minimizing any gameplay types that aren't your favorite.

You've been consistently touting some "I have so much experience in competition that I know so much more about everything we're discussing here" mantra that means absolutely nothing in terms of this discussion, and instead of coming off as someone who does know what you're talking about, you come off as an ass--and an elitist ass, at that.

And really, I think that's all you are, anyway. Just an elitist who thinks he's hot shit, simply because he's gotten around. I invite you to prove me wrong, but I don't think that's possible here.

Oh, and by the way...

Nobody cares. Your personal life is not bartering currency here.

And what would that be, anyway? To use that kind of word selection would imply that GW was meant to only be played in full-on PvP, with UAX.

But as we can clearly see from the Betas through retail...UAX was never how GW "was meant to be played," so your statement here is irrelevant, arredondo. If UAX truly represented how we were supposed to play the game...it wouldn't have been a Beta-only feature.

But as it stands now, it was a Beta-only feature, so what does that say regarding "the way the game was meant to be played"?

And by the way, regardless of what different ratios people are claiming there are regarding PvE/PvP game percentages...GuildWars is definitely a combination of both, so I think you should seriously reconsider treating the game like it was strictly meant to be PvP-only.

First off MTG can be a much faster pace game than GW depending on the deck build, just like there are fast and slow paced team builds in GW. Commonly in MTG id have games last around 20-30 seconds and it was over, which frequently was within the first 3 turns. At the time if the deck didnt accomplish the goal by the 3rd turn it was a bad deck. The matches only lasted longer if the two people involved didnt understand the game or had denial style deck, which would be akin to spirit builds for GW, since they are dening the ability to kill rapidly. GW is no where near the pace of FPS games. GW is just as slow as any other online RPG when it comes to the speed of the game. I believe you have lost alot of perspective here, or lack experience.

Every time you state that you arent for either, it leads me to believe that you have no argument. Stating that you think the requirements are too high are merly saying that you want everything unlocked sooner, just like the UAX option, but it doesnt adress anyone new entering the game. The real issue here is that the system or concept of the system is flawed. I tried to enlighten you to that fact based upon different angles that included the actual point rewards for the different combat venues, to the placement of the characters, to trying to force the pve system into the pvp system. Also stating that they werent purposfully placed within those areas would also imply that the design team is stupid. Simply saying the points are too high, a real elitist would just counter by saying go farm it in GVG ganks, because of the fractional amount of time it requires by comparison. That is why your statement for reduction makes no sense as the "reduction" ability is already present within the game. That is why i stated that the entire system seems to be more of an incentive to participate in GvG battles rather than truly there to assist in the accrual of items in order to be competitive within pvp.

I do find it odd that you call the views of the "hardcore pvp" individuals as elitist stating that they veiw pve as nursery school when that is how id describe your method of education for new people within a fighting game. It also falls in the exact same lines to insinuate that the new people must be given next to nothing to learn with while playing the game. You are a new guy, so you are incapable of learning beyond this pre-set rate, so just be happy you have the game. Oh yeah dont worry about losing to that guy thats been playing longer, because well he has been playing longer, in fact its better you dont pvp at all till you have beat the pve game 3 times.

Almost in the same breath you state that it is not the game's fault for gamer attitudes then state that a game succeedes because it is easy to pick up and play. First off, its not a game if no one plays, secondly the design of the game drives the direction of the attitudes found within it. Never have i seen someone walk around being just generally rude when my cousin plays the sims online (is the online version even called that? meh). As i see it, making the game more difficult to pickup and play, if the desire is for pvp, then that makes it follow as being sucessful for being complex not simple. Actually what history shows is that people learn at different rates and allowing them to learn at that rate yeilds a better understanding for the content present. If you go too slow and the fast lose interest, go too fast and the slow get frustrated. What history doesnt show is how simple = better in every situation, quite commonly there were always many other factors involved. Simple games from a coplex background or genre have failed, just as much as simple games from a simple background appeal to a wider audience, but typically a younger audience, and suceede.

hmm first post here in 3 weeks.

*looks around*

*notices not much changed since i retired*

*laughs contently*

*opens bf2*

gg anet!

Sure I understand the problem with that statement, you poorly summarize my post with your weak interpretation and then proceed to argue against your fairy tale. The frustration shown in the nonsense that follows shows that you must be tired of the way I consistently show 2+2 does NOT =5 as you would have us believe. Can't attack the facts with any substance, so ignore them and attack the messenger. I'd feel sorry for your inability to debate with a backbone if I wasn't laughing so hard.

So where can one better see a summary of my post? Amazingly enough, in the post itself! The fact that you half-quoted it and missed it makes it even more hilarious the way you go off on your crazy tangent:

Wow, when I get my entire quote put there (instead of your pitiful tactic of snipping it in two) we see the point being made. Obviously I'm referring to a lot of competitive gaming, not just GW. Obviously competitive gaming is synonomous with PvP. Based on a lot of first hand experience over several years, it's become obvious to me that people advance faster playing against a person than a computer in these types of games.

PvP.... as in 'Player vs. Player'..... as in the way these games are MEANT to be played. Despite your obvious white flag waving by going at me instead of the issue, the point remains unchallenged. Please, go ahead and TRY to refute this again. Just try and prove PvP improvement is really best found in PvE over PvP. The weight of pure logic over your twisted reasoning must indeed be immense.

Also, show me where I'm saying 'only'. Show me where I'm saying PvE is "useless". Yes, you learn in PvE, but it is slower. I'm saying that there are people who PvE in different games, including Guild Wars, are much, much, much, much better served playing actual people in PvP than a predictable computer A.I. If you learn 20% of how to play PvP after a year of playing PvE, then in that same time frame, you could be 60% proficient if you delve into pure PvP play. My equation is simple.... more PvP you play, the better at PvP you become. The more those hours are devoted to PvE, the slower your PvP development will grow comparatively. This assumes UAX of course.

Your quote on my competitive experience I use to support my observations:

Oh really?

There's someone who gets the point, and another ignorant statement of yours is shredded to pieces. I guess the pattern explains your growing frustration.

But that's not important honestly... I brought it up for a specific reason. As for my experience, I stick by it because it is the support I provide to back up my observations. Are you saying that real life experiences add nothing to observed results? Isn't that what the scientific approach is all about? Sure, I can set up a controlled study with 20K people over 10 years, but as it stands now, my deep backround in competition has proven for maybe two weeks now to be far more extensive and relavant than what you've offered.

Oh, and by the way... how do you come up with these ridiculous observations? Not attacking you, but the illogical statements like the one you just tried to defend? What basis do you have to suggest that the more PvE one puts in the better at PvP he'll become (as opposed to, play PvP to become better at PvP)? Please, share your background or uber-qualifications. I'm not elite for being experienced, but at least I have something tangible to logically back me up. I'm not elite for saying play PvE for PvE entertainment, and play PvP to improve in PvP. Sounds logical to me.

How about another chance to prove the point you glossed over? Answer the question made:

Two future War Machine guild members are given a copy of Guild Wars. Neither has played before. Who's likely to be in better shape to seriously compete in PvP tournaments after 101 hours of playing... player A who spends the first 100 hours mastering PvE, or Player B who spends the first 100 hours getting beat down in PvP.

Take your time. My prediction? More rants and a diversion to ignore the question. Hint: 2+2 still does not =5.

And how many matches in Guild Wars routinely last 30 seconds or less?

What is the average 4v4 match length in GW? Average of less than 5 minutes? 10 at most?

What's a round of CS, or Halo 2, or GoldenEye 64 like. Under even the normal settings, death occurs very quickly, and matches are over in very short amounts of time...some matches may last longer than 5 or 10 minutes, but the only difference there would be the level layouts, and if Halo 2 matches were to occur in say, Ascalon Arena, you'd see incredibly fast matches. If the win parameters were set like GW's...I wouldn't doubt we'd be seeing 2-minute matches.

We'll see about that, Phades.

Now I get it...it's all or nothing, isn't it? Either it's the unlock system or UAX, eh?

And therein lies the critical flaw with your entire stance on the matter: you're operating only under a black and white approach. And your argument only works when the subject matter is black and white--and the subject matter here is not black and white. This would explain why you've been trying to color my argument as the same as the UAX argument...because if you don't, you can't argue against it.

Now listen to me very carefully, because you're going to want to tell me that I'm actually arguing for UAX, but what I'm suggesting is the gray area. That much is clear to anyone who isn't required to strictly adhere to the black and whites of this discussion so that they can continue to argue their point.

Through my acknowledgement that the current unlock system, in its current state, is more time-consuming than some would like, I am not going to the other extreme and saying the unlock system should be done away with, because there is a distinct and distinguishable difference between reducing the time required and removing the time required. Those two words do mean radically different things.

But for argument's sake, let's continue along your postulation, and we'll use an example from the game itself:

Althea's Ashes is a quest out of Piken Square that has the player going through the Charr Flame Corridor, through loads of Charr warriors, archers, mesmers, necromancers, etc., to gather Althea's ashes from an urn at the very end of the area. This quest was a bitch and a half to complete, even for a well-organized and well-prepared team.

Understandably, because it was so difficult and time-consuming due to the amounts of Charr in the area, players requested it be made easier...and lo and behold, ANet responded. The amount of Charr in the area was reduced by I'd say 25%, maybe 40%.

If what you're saying is accurate (that because I'm suggesting the unlock system be tweaked so that players don't have to invest such huge amounts of time, I'm actually arguing for the total removal of the system), then those having problems with Althea's Ashes were actually arguing for a total removal of all Charr in the area.

That is the fundamental idea behind what you're saying, isn't it? That if someone has an issue--or at least supports reducing the amount of time required for something--they're actually supporting removing the issue entirely?

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the Althea's Ashes example, just like how it isn't an accurate assessment of my stance on this matter. What do you think?

Were the players actually arguing for a clean run through the Flame Corridor, or were they actually requesting that the difficulty be reassessed/tweaked?

Reducing the time requirements isn't addressing anyone new entering the game? When you reduce the time requirements, that means new players can be up and running faster than with the old time requirements. I'm missing how that's not accounting for new players. If it's possible for new players to unlock 75-80% of everything within 75-80 hours from creating their character...I'd say that's pretty good. And it can be done through adjusting the current faction point system. I'll hammer out the rough guesstimates for it later if you'd like.

If there's no real issue, then, no real desire from players to adjust the faction point payout/requirements, because GvG is such a huge payout, why are we seeing so many people requesting that the faction points be adjusted? If there's already a reduction ability...why is there an issue then? If faction points aren't a problem (and subsequently, the current state of the unlock system, as it's directly related to the faction points) because someone can hop into GvG and acquire a nice payout...what need is there for any instant unlock?

When it's between throwing new players into the water before they really know how to swim, or teaching them how to tread water? I'd be inclined to teach them the basics first.

And I think there's a difference between establishing a learning curve so that new players aren't alienated and disregarding nearly everything in PvE because it doesn't "fit" with one's particular Ideology.

Phades, I honestly like much of what you wrote there, but this sentence is very important to elaborate on, because you've arrived at a point that I'm not sure you even realize what it is quite yet.

Going too slow is a long, drawn-out tutorial, sure. But then, if going too fast is at the opposite extreme...what might that be? Perhaps UAX?

The long, drawn-out tutorial will cause the faster players, more intuitive ones, to lose interest.

But what happens to the slower players if they get instantly bombarded with everything in the game all at once? They will get frustrated, you're exactly right, and eventually, they'll begin to lose interest in the game, because who's going to play a game that frustrates them? Not many, I'd say.

So where does that leave this discussion?

Back at the need to find a medium, a gray area.

You'd like me to show you where you're outright minimizing anything learned in PvE? Okay.

I notice that a blanket "UNLEARNING PvE techniques and strategies" is a recurring theme throughout the quoted post there. If you do value PvE, and do acknowledge that it does teach valuable play mechanics that are valuable in PvP (Shadow of Fear+Empathy is a waste, for example)...why the constant "When you leave PvE for PvP, you must UNLEARN what you have learned"? Doesn't seem like you value PvE there at all, but maybe that's just because I'm not the one trying to rewrite what your posts mean, after people reply to them?

And GW was designed--was meant to be played--in a way that integrates PvP and PvE. You don't like it, fine. But understand that the game was meant to be played with an integration. It may have faults now, but keep in mind that GW is basically breaking the mold here, so this is basically uncharted waters.

Quick little thing:

Very next paragraph. Even though he agrees with your assessment of PvE/PvP...he still disagrees with you on the unlock system. So here you have someone who even understands where you're coming from...and yet his conclusion is radically different than yours. And in fact...I'll underline and organize some really nice bits in that paragraph. I particularly am interested in what he says in the second section there.

Gear (runes, skills, and upgrades) DO make a difference in pvp. The more skilled player will lose if he only has half the skills in the game and no elites, runes, or upgrades. Any idiot can put together 8 skills that work well together if all the skills are unlocked. It's the more experienced, more skilled players that will win even if everything is unlocked. This goes back to the reasoning that even though someone is more skilled than me at pvp, why should they have everything unlocked while I only get half? No, this game is not for the casual player, because the casual players are always at a disadvantage and can never overcome that disadvantage unless they become a hardcore player.