Top Ten Issues in Guild Wars

Top 10 issues with Guild Wars:

10: The Grind
9: The Grind
8: The Grind
7: The Grind
6: The Grind
5: The Grind
4: The Grind
3: The Grind
2: The Grind
1: The Grind

Seriously, everything else mentioned here is small time. Guild Wars doesn't have enough PvE grind to keep that demographic happy, either in terms of sheer content or the carrot. They'll complete the game then go back to WoW or whatever their favorite grind game is. PvP ready-to-play out of the box? More like 5,000 hours of grind. You can't even spend your PvP rewards without a PvE character that's all but completed the game.

Thus we're left with a game that bores the PvE players away because they want their carrot, and drives the competitive PvP players away because they don't have the patience for 5,000 hours of grind to get to be competitive. If they don't want this title to die an unfortunate death, they need to figure out what role the want the grind to play and implement it. This dottering around with empty promises while all the competitive players leave for PvP games that you actually can pick up and play is not going to make a successful title.

Peace,
-CxE

Don't care as much about the other things, but an auction house would be great, and don't get me started on how cool wars would be.

You want to turn GW into a second WoW?

I think you guys are giving this guy waaay to hard of a time. You should try to put some thought into something a write a few pages about it just to be flamed out the ass.

I at least partially agree with most of it except for the only 8 skills thing. The limited number forces you to actually think about what you want to take and coordiante it with your team. With extra skill slots you would probably see enchant + hex removal skills go through the roof and generally the system would break. The game is balanced for 8, if you add more you will be screwing stuff up.

You left out waiting 3-4 months then attacking what is in the game, and attacking those things, which were announced PRE-RELEASE of the game.

Nice work LOL.

Pretty stupid to name the game after something that happened BEFORE the time you'll actually be in. That's like naming a game "Battles of World War 2" and then let you play during the cold war

Agreed on the auction house thing. Even before I read this thread, I was telling a friend in game about how crappy trading is here. If you want to sell something serious, you have to spam the trade and local channels like everyone else - really a turn off. Something similar to an auction house in FFIII would make this game much better and enjoyable, especially when storage/inventory space is limited, as well as character creation to 4.

Although, about the 1vs1 thing, I'm not too sure I agree. Guild Wars incorporates teamwork and group coordination. Hence support classes have an important role too, not just pure damage dealers/spikers/nukers. Round robin takes that away from the game.

Two words: More storage.

To start with, I'd like to have weapon set-ups stored separately from my inventory, so when I have a full inventory then try to switch from a two-handed weapon to a one-handed plus shield weapon, I don't get a bunch of tooth-grinding beeps as my character is being pommeled to death. The character inventory, even with bags, is much too tiny, really. How about having a separate, additional "invisible" inventory for each of our 4 weapon set ups? I'd be ever so thrilled.

Then I'd like to have additional compartments in the "storage" area based on how many characters have moved into post-searing. Have two characters running around the post-searing game? Then instead of merely 20 slots, allow 30 slots, three get 40, that kind of ting. Something to acknowledge that several characters require more space than one character (But please don't change the ability for all characters to access that storage space. I LOVE that!)

I agree that more skills are needed on the skill belt. I wanted to have a pet, but no way could I afford to give up 2-3 precious skill slots in order to have one. I love being able to have two professions, and having 10 slots instead of 8 would allow us to use our secondary profession for more than a 1-skill afterthought!

10) Agreed. The story is linear with no bonus areas to explore with extra or special features.

9) Agreed. Something to help trading needs to be implemented.

8) Agreed. Although more than looks can be changed. Right now, the armor doesn't offer much variety. For example, elementalist armor has +15 bonus versus the different elements. Well, that's great, but something that offers more trade-off for bonus would seem better.

7) Definately Disagree. How is 10 the perfect number, where 8 is not enough? The number of skill slots, or rather the lack of skill slots, promotes team play and challenge. One person can't bring enough skills to do everything, so you have to split roles up with your teamates.

6) Agreed. The AI basically goes after your weakest member. That is all the strategy they have. There is no spell coordination or anything of that nature. If monsters would coordinate skills such as Feast of Coruption and hexes, they would pose more of a threat than just being strong, hard hitting monsters. In addition, the scorpians show up throughout much of the game, and you see repeats of monsters that were seen in ascalon in the desert.

5) Don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this. If implemented, I would be fine with it, if not, I wouldn't really care.

4) Agreed to a point. As stated, more control over a pet would be nice, but their strength is fine as is.

3) Disagreed. It would simply be far too imbalanced. A W/Mo would NEVER be able to win against a monk running protective spirit with 105 or 55 health because of lack of enchantment removal. A match against a healing monk would end in a stalemate unless you could distract his heals very well or have some sort of energy denial. Overall, some characters are meant to function in a TEAM, and not 1v1, and the imbalance of the different classes against each other would be terrible.

2) Agreed. Different objective based PvP matches would be both exciting and interesting.

1) Agreed. A large GvG battle with what you described would require more tactics than what is presented now. You would be required to decided what to go for first, catapults or high ground, and when to attack the enemy. With a larger amount of players, a small group could go out and attempt to raid their areas while you defend yours.

I am going to say that I disagree with your solution, only because it won't matter.

the real problem with Travel in Guild Wars(and 99.9% of the players here are NOT GOING TO LIKE this answer) is a combination of:

1) The Game being Linear. Run straight from one town to the next, don't stop to see the sights. There's no reason to stray from the linear path, and if you do..there's really nothing to see because EVERYTHING worth seeing is in the towns and Mission zones.

2) The Insta-Porting system that makes it completely worthless to actually travel somewhere in the world once you've been run through. why run when you can just click a button and be there?

this combination makes the game feel more like a Dungeon Crawler game(like Diablo) with Graphical Lobbys(aka Towns and Cities) as opposed to a coherent virtual world. and regardless of what they add into the world, as long as there is no reason to explore(because you can just port everywhere), nobody will explore.

The solution to this is to add meaningful content into the Wilderness of our world here. Towns and Cities that ARE NOT on the Map(like the Ascalon Settlement in Kryta), Dungeons. Quests that you find out in the wild, and not in a town. Lore(and quests that give Lore) about the world, and about the Monsters/enemies in it. Landmarks that you have to FIND in order to see, not listed on the map. things like that.

and the second part is to somewhat limit the insta-teleporting. this is the part that nobody will agree with, because the insta-teleporting is just the most convienient thing in the world, and I think the entire playerbase rebel if they even thought if changing it. but I think it is necessary if you want the game to be a cohesive WORLD and not a Dungeon Crawl with Graphical Lobbies. I'd say limit it to Capital Cities (i.e. Lion's Arch, Amnoon Oasis, etc.) and Mission Zones. that would give people a real reason to go out into the world and explore it, and see all the content that is in the game.

this would help make the game a bit more open-ended and a bit less linear, unless you just go from mission-to-mission, which you still could.

good points their....i agree with most of them except for Pets and 1 on 1

regarding Pets only one class has it currently no point devoting the development team and effort into them besides most rangers dont even carry pets

1 on 1 is their really point? all builds can counter a different build so in 1 on 1 its not about skills its about what build you use compare to your rival

I would like to see intra Guild matches are more worth while addition than 1 on 1

If you find it let me know cause in the MMO world it doesn't exist.

I have to agree on the part about having an actual war. I mean, when you got 8 people on a team, everyone goes directly for the monk. Have 20 people on a team, and maybe that would cut back on the issue of picking players off, 1 by 1.

quoted for truth.

Guild Wars is the most easily accessible MMO there is, when it comes to PvP. trust me on this. if you can't handle having to unlock skills to use in PvP...if that is too much of a "grind" for you, my advice is to not even LOOK at any other MMOs that have PvP in them. seriously. the grind is 10x worse in every other MMO game with PvP(shudders at ToA Artifact camping......ugh).

the only other option for MMOs would likely be Planetside, but that game is dying and is barely being maintenanced.

Agreed. I don't mind the linear paths from point A to point B, but damn...there needs to be more areas. I want to explore the middle mountains of Shiverpeaks damnit.

[quote]
***In-game trading:***
[/quoted]

Agreed. I would like something that allows me to setup my own shop with my own prices, descriptions, and pet animal that will be carting. When people click on my cart, they get my typed-introduction, identical to the NPC merchants. That way, we don't need to spam the trade channel and we are more control of what we sale.

Disagree here. The armor and weapon designs are not that varied because in PvP, people want to know who is who by visual stance.

It's fine and it's a good number.

While in the fantasy world, this would be real nice, this has been a common problem with every RPG on earth.

I love instances because I don't have to deal with idiotic gamers who ninja loot and kill steal. You call that social interaction? RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO that.

The problem isn't the pets, but the people using them. I've made some pet builds that made a lot of people fear George Bush the bear.

Would be nice if it was 1 on 1, but I doubt it would happen since the game is focused on people working together and each character supporting one another.

I don't like the idea of walking into a mission and getting a chance to lose because some morons gank you.

What I do like is PvP specific missions instead of arenas...like raiding a castle.

That would be freaking sweet.

RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO that, I want to see countries facing each other in 3 teams of 8 people.

That would be sweeeet.

Completely untrue.

You can get a PvP capable level in Shadowbane with very little effort at all in about 2 days (which is 70, the max being 75, but anything over 70 is almost a waste of time except for specific templates). You can macro monster spawns extremely easy in SB, meaning you can have someone (or yourself) set up the macro, and you can go to sleep and wake up with a ton of levels, AND DO ABSOLUTELY NO INGAME WORK. The skills are unlocked by level, and to max the skills out you have to go to a trainer which practically any city on the map has, and buy the upgrades until you are maxed. The economy is a flat out joke so money is not a problem. Items are also not a problem because you can just have your guild roll the best ones for you.

Also, the PvP in SB blows this game out of the water. It also has several years of balancing issues under its belt. The only problem 'was' the lack of a player base, but that is being solved by the up and coming lore server. The only true problem with SB is overcoming the zerg fest, which in my eyes was fun anyways considering I have been involved in battles with over 500 people playing. Try organizing that over several vent servers before talking about how coordinated 8 people are in this game.

So, before making outstanding comments on other games, while comparing them to this game, make sure you know what you are talking about first.

No offense, but if you don't think GW is fun... don't play it. And if you don't play it, don;t come here and spew negatives about it. There's a LOT of good stuff about GW that makes it better than games like WoW... sure it may not have the depth of a WoW-type MMO, but it's better than WoW in a lot of ways.

Also:

Honestly, I don't give two hoots about what the Beta was like; it may have been "teh pwnz0r", but that's not what we have now. What we have is what was released, and that's all that matters. I am getting sick of all these self-proclaimed beta testers bitching about what isn't in the game that they had back then. Ya wanna know something? I'd be willing to bet that A-net took it out for a good reason. Do they have to tell you why? No, because THEY own the game and it's content, not you. So sit down and play what we were given, and stop complaining, at least to us, about what was there, because I doubt most of us care any more.

*sorry if that was a bit harsh, but that's something that has been annoying me for several weeks now*

<3

It is hard keeping up with you guys though considering you have 4x the experience (atleast time lenght wise) then the majority of the people in this game. Ensign is like a damn dictionary when it comes to GW haha...

7. Everquest has million skills yet you can use 8 so does other GREAT RPGs.

6. Diablo2 BEST SELLER 5 MILLION SOLD, has monster reincarnation 80th time also, yet they are still MOST SOLD OUT game.

I really hate to say this, because I don't agree with much from the OP, but you sir are an idiot. You make an awefull lot of assumptions about the OP, you assume he MUST play a War and only a War because NOBODY else would ever want 1v1 pvp. I want it. Not because of all the crap about testosterone, and while I have 1 war's, neither is pvp oriented. I got all the testosterone stuff out of my system when I was a real life soldier, so I don't need it in this game. I personaly want 1v1 because I DON'T want to team up with a bunch of teenagers. I have nothing against them existing, I'd just prefer not to be reminded. I'm 37, and I game. Very few of my peers game, so I'm left on my own.

I want 1v1 for the same reason I quit the pve game when I got to the second fire island mission. I've gotten 3 toons there, but I havn't found a way to beat it solo, so that's it. Honestly, I lost interest anyway. I'm still very pissed that they made the pve mandatory, and I expect I would have been much more interested in it if I'd been able to focus on PvP from the begining and been able to do the PvE at my leasure instead of being forced to rush through it desperatly trying to cap skills before I got hopelessly left behind.

Pets suck. Sure you can dedicate your entire skill bar to making them decent (decent, not godly), but then you suck. That's a bad tradeoff. Anyone who brings a pet into pvp gets flamed instantly, and deservedly. Anyone who bothers to attack a pet while there are still enemy players standing gets flamed as well.

Your accusation of narrowmindedness in the OP's pointing out what he considers shortcomings is pretty narrowminded itself. And your claim that getting to ascension will suddenly open his eyes, as well as your assumption that he hasn't managed to ascend is pretty offensive. Ascension doesn't change much, and while I like it I'd happily give it up for better PvP.

Your claim that PvP is robust, and your pointing to tombs as some sort of amazing revelation, as well as your assumption that he hasn't already been in tombs, is just silly. Tombs is NOT the end all-be all of PvP. It's a nice start, which is supposed to dovetail into GvG (notice the need to obtain a Sigil BEFORE you can GvG?). Unfortunatly it doesn't work as well as hoped. And you only have to GvG for a couple of weekends, and not even GvG very hard, to fight on all of the available maps. Most of the maps are effectively the same anyway.

Not only do I want 1v1, I want 2v2, and I want a free for all. 16 players show up on a map, all of them free agents and hostile to each other. In order to have a chance of passing the lvl, they have to form temporary alliances, all the while knowing there will be a betrayal before the end, as "there can be only one".

Your assumption that having vent or ts will magicaly open his PvP options is also pretty rude. You not only assume he doesn't have voice chat, you also assume there is some great pool of good PvP players out there waiting to accept anyone who comes along. Sure he can probably find a bunch of noobs to tomb with, but getting in with a decent group is just a tiny bit harder. In fact, I've done some OK GvG and tombs after release, but the last time I got on with a GOOD group was in beta.

This game is a "cooperative MMO"? I know that's what the dev's call it, but I beg to disagree. I'd say the closest comparison with this game can be found in the shooter world. Tiny PvE content to get you tuned up for PvP, the dedication to keeping the various player classes balanced, most of the rest. Compare this game to your average shooter, then compare it to say WoW. It's vastly closer in spirit and content to the shooter.

But then they chickened out at the last second and tried to make it a MMO. I know most of the forumers are still giddy with joy, you got your way, you won, and I'm not interested in reopening the whole PvP crowd vs. PvE noobs war. The trouble is, they never did get around to actualy switching the game to a MMO, they just sort of copped out and forced us PvP guys to go through the PvE to make you guys happy.

I've actualy gone back to Diablo for the most part. They just released a new patch, and reset ladder, so for the next little while it's a better game than GW. And it's 5 years old, so it's a lot easier to forgive the warts.

Many guys on these forums have claimed that people complaining about the economy should try Diablo are just wrong. I'd put the D2 economy as superior to GW's, if for no other reason than the official, and well populated, trade forums. There is a duping problem, as well as a botting problem. These problems are unlikely to be solved, partly because this game is founded on 5 year old code, and partly because there are only a couple of guys doing any work on it at this point.

The ONLY reason I got into GW was for PvP. As the PvP has gone into the toilet, I've just lost interest.

All of you claiming GW will last forever based on claims that never seem to have any basis, where is everybody? I asked this question a couple of months ago, and it's even more true today. Just getting on my account for a quick second to check out the health, I see 13 Droknar districts, 16 LA, 27 Asc. City, 9 Tombs, 12 ToA, and of the 20 or so lesser traveled towns I just randomly checked, almost all were 2 districts, with a couple 3's and 1 4 (Thirsty River at that). You're all so damned sure there's nothing wrong with this game, you got your way, you won, and now you insist the game if perfect.

Well, where is everybody? What this represents is a perfect example of engineering 101. One of the first things they teach you in design is to listen to what the market says it wants, but not to put too much faith in it. History is full of examples of failed products that were made exactly the way the market SAID they wanted. They listened to you, the PvE MMO crowd. You got your way, once again I admit you won. It must not have hurt that you've had Gaile Grey on your side from the begining. Just know that you also destroyed the game. It is dead, a fact I base on the near total lack of actual people playing the game.

Just to show a tiny comparison, Diablo2 has at this second 53,727 players online. A 5 year old game is currently kicking Gw's ass.

I still have a Problem with only 8 people allowed to be on a team in GvG. Now that I think of it, why not call the title "Clubhouse Scramble" instead of Guild Wars...At the very least, there should be 12-15 people in GvG.

So you would prefer that the negative things remain unchanged?

I noticed that you didn't say any of these things.

It makes me wonder why so many "self-proclaimed beta testers" liked the beta "events" more than the current game. Maybe because it was better?

Tha devs call it a...

Sayshina, that last post is the most intelligent I have ever read at these forums. I agree, entirely.

Wow, I made a small complaint compared to some of you guys. Its just a game, its nothing more...I think a lot of people here are forgetting that.

I think that you're forgetting that this game takes up a lot of time in each players day. Time that could be used earning the player money or volunteering or something else of equal importance. So in reality this is pretty important to most people who could be doing something elso but instead choose to support Anet by playing their game.

And as for sayshina, when you said "I personaly want 1v1 because I DON'T want to team up with a bunch of teenagers. I have nothing against them existing, I'd just prefer not to be reminded. I'm 37, and I game. Very few of my peers game, so I'm left on my own." Guess what pal, this game was MADE for teens, read the box. Sorry to say it, but grow-up...

He's not immature for playing a game designed for a more-youthful demographic... It may be a tad egotistical for him to choose not to team up with a teenager, just because they ARE teenagers, but there are plenty of teenagers who don't want to team up with teenagers, or ANYONE, for that matter, as well. His point still stands: some people don't want to team with others, so a 1v1 PvP (or at least a 2v2, if you are coming up short grabbing the required minimum of 4 in a team arena) seems to be in high demand right now.

I see your point, ExDeity, but I never said 1v1 or 2v2 was a bad idea. But, if he thinks diablo is a better game because it has more people playing, by all means go play it. It is, as he makes it sound, the perfect game.

Playing the perfect game will, undoubtedly, become boring. Yes, I said it: the "perfect" game will become boring. Why did I just say that? Well, because there is no perfect game, of course, and players are constantly looking for upgrades to games they have already played, enjoyed, and sadly, become bored of.

Perhaps he is looking for the D2 experience to be enhanced in a game that is still making progress. I do not blame him for wanting such.

These comments are so unbelievably short sited it amazes me. You do realize that gaming is a way of life for some people? I have been gaming all of my life. I still remember the day I got an Atari for my birthday, and from there the sky was the limit. I am 27 years old, and still currently own an Atari, a NES, a N64, a Sega Genesis, a PS2, and 4 computers that all have some version of a game installed on them. I love gaming, I always will, and I take it seriously.

Now I am sure that if I just posted that paragraph I would get some assinine post of how I need to get out of the house. So before someone makes yet another dumb post take this into consideration:

I have been to over 40 countries. I am currently happily married, and have a kid on the way. I have almost completed 3 degrees now, in physics, computer science, and math. I served in the military living every adrenaline junk's dream in a spec ops unit. I have done every extreme sport on the plannet, including jumping out of planes for a living, bungee jumping, rock climbing, and whatever else you could possibly name. I have traveled all over the US. I have done more exicting things in 5 years then most people will ever do in their entire lives.

So, the next time you decide to post some idiotic vague reference on a subject that is obviously entirely over your head, just don't. It really is a waste of everyone's time.

lol, that used to be a go army commercial. well, I gotta go, but i had fun. I cant sit here and bullshit all night with a bunch of "serious gamers" anymore though.

First Off, Shadowbane tanked. Maybe they've fixed some stuff, and it may actually be good now, but since its release, it's always been mentioned in the same sentence as Asheron's Call 2, residing on the bottom half of the MMORPG spectrum.

however you do have a point. perhaps I should have said MOST other MMORPGs and not ALL.

some thoughts:

"Macro" - in this game and most other MMOGs games(except Asheron's Call 1 and SB), it's called "botting", and it is discouraged. perhaps this game needs Macroing. maybe that will make what little grind there is compared to most other MMORPGs bearable.

"PvP in SB blows this game out of the Water." - I imagine so, the Siege concept is a completely awesome one. in SB your Guild can build its own City, and raid another guild's cities and burn them to the ground. that concept in itself puts SB's PvP head and shoulders above everyone else's. but then, why are people HERE, and not THERE looking for Competitive PvP? why is the problem with lack of Playerbase? Shadowbane is the Ultimate PvPer game, at least in theory. something has to give.

"I have been involved in battles with over 500 people playing. Try organizing that over several vent servers before talking about how coordinated 8 people are in this game. " - been there, done that, got T-Shirts. I dunno what the point of this statement is, other than to further incite. Guild Wars PvP isn't really that appealing to me, I like large-scale faction-based PvP. I never was a fan of small-scale Team Deathmatch.

and why the snippy tone? I wasn't rude in my postings. and if I was, then I apologize. I don't really understand the arrogance and bitterness of some folks around here.

with that said, I'll say no more in this thread(and probably this forum), the attitudes around here are getting a bit too heavy and serious for me. I'm a light-hearted fellow.

Exactly. This person has a very limited sence of how the game works and what features are in it. Really, anyone complaining about PvP has only done 4vs4 areana, they don't have a guild/hall or their pugs keeps dying to the unworthy at the start of Tombs.

I don't see anything wrong with pets. I see something wrong with the Elder wolf as it as powerful as a smiting/healing W/mo from what I've seen . I have a pet pig named Pigtoria and she has managed to solo careless monks and mesmers before

I would like to see better exploring features and more open endedness to walking about.

What? 48 players in a game is "small-scale Team Deathmatch"?

Wow, you are just full of useless statements tonight. Funny how I can backup my version of the 'go army commercial' with hundreds of pictures and momentos, not to mention we can hop on vent right now and you can listen to my wife personally laugh at you. Care to lose face any more?

Funny how it tanked yet it has been going for how many years now...


Yeah, your theory is the thing giving. Last time I checked, there are people there, and more are on the way. There are several guilds in this game that will ditch it like a bad habit once the lore server comes out. DC is one of them, if they haven't already. From what I hear, LoTd also has moved to SB.

The point of the comment was my view on one of the problems I said there was in SB, and how in my experience it wasn't so much a problem for me. Good to see that you can cut and paste and take opinions out of context.

The 'snippy tone' wasn't so much directed at you as it was to everyone that makes sensationalist claims without ever backing them up. If you are going to use statements like "Guild Wars is the most easily accessible MMO there is, when it comes to PvP" you better be ready to back them up.

or perhaps the PvP just isn't interesting to me? why is that not a possibility? why is it so utterly inconcievable that someone just doesn't like to PvP in a particular game...???? I dunno what's up with the "you just must not be good if you don't like PvP" sentiment that's been going around. someone else said something similar on GW Online.


yes.

I Played Planetside in its prime(read: Before SoE ruined it by turning the best FPS on the Market into a MechWarrior Ripoff). 3 sides, 150-200 players per SIDE fighting at the same time, on the same continent. and there were this many on 3 other continents as well at the same time. pick which large scale fight you wanna go to.

I've also played 100-150 man Keep Raids in DAoC.

City Raids in WoW of 70-75 people per side.

48 players in a game is very small in comparison.

and this is why I don't like to PvP here. my prerogative.

I said I wouldn't comment further, but I had to answer that last question. so with that said, I am done.

well, maybe because Guild Wars is a free game.

i'm not being sarcastic or anything.

You do realize that Idiot Savants, Blood Eagle, and Lords of the Dead (three of the best PvP guild that have played in Guild Wars) have all complained about the PvP at one time or another, correct?

(I know for a fact all three have played in more than just 4vs4 arena, I'm pretty sure they all have halls, and I have at least seen iQ win the Hall multiple times.)

Where did you buy your game?

I ordered mine from EB and it cost me $50.00.

I wasn't suggesting that the only people who complain about PvP haven't really PvPed before; I've never heard any iQ members complain that "We need prettier and more pvp maps", have you?

Two days to level 70 in SB. Yes, no grind there. I played SB, and while I really loved the premise, it was same old same old just like any other pvp server in any other game. Zergs lol.

This is how pvp works in every MMO. First it starts with small groups. Then they all pick sides and ally. Then you go through a period of time where the alliances break down, reform and evolve into zergs. Then all that is left is large scale battles. That goes beyond pvp to warfare management. Kinda takes out the fight part just being one of a mass of people.

It happened in UO, it happened in SB, and it happened in Eve. Don't know about the other games, but thank god that wont happen here.

My comments are anything but outstanding. They are simply observations. Again be happy we won't see zergs and all the garbage that comes from uncontrolled, non-consensual pvp that exists in other games.

Here there is a winner and loser. Everywhere else you have to post screenies on a forum and board pvp to try and prove you won.

*edit* I got a brain fart and missed the macroing part to level in SB. But how many people know to do that? And is that legal?

You said "anyone complaining about pvp has only done 4v4...". Allow me to repeat myself. You said ANYONE ...

The guildmaster for LOTD posted a massive flame of Gaile Grey soon after release, I'm not sure what forum it was on, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't on just about all of them. It might have gotten locked, as most of these forums are EXTREEMLY carebare oriented, but there's a decent chance the search button will turn it up somewhere. It's pretty badly written, with the profanity taking up around 80% of the total word count, but it's also entertaining. And it's vastly better informed than you are sir.