Petition to seperate PvP from PvE

uhm..... Create PvP -> Pick a PreMade Template -> Choose a Name... how many hours did that take?!

PvP enough on that character and unlock skills that you want.. you never had to do a minutes worth of PvE...

as of now i say...

/signed

if they make it so alliances and faction can take a town but not lock it or any of its functions out then yes intergration is fine. give the controlling faction/alliance discounted prices, or higher resale to trades but don't put politics in a video game.
PvP has alot of ego driven mad men/women.
who gone into a group and the first thing they want to know( well tell you is what build your running and question you to see if your in the right setup) then want you to display an emote to prove you have played. LMAO
ok i understand you don't want a noob or a PvE build ( in most cases ).
but that is what we try to get away from.

PvE wants quality missions and storyline WITH player interaction.
if i wanted to play a game by my self i'd play oblivion. its a superior PvE RPG.
PvP control only complicates PvE.
Go ahead and feed their egos but leave the environment alone.

I would vote no, but votes realy don't count in my opinion.

The game is a PvP and PvE game, and although the skill balance revolves around fair PvP play, it works fine in PvE, and it is a very good game on both ends.

The animosity amongst players revovles around player immaturity, and it isn't the developers job to educate or force maturity on players, a level of respect is expected, but not enforced, and with a non-subscription game, we arn't paying them for monitoring player discussion.

As for PvP and PvE activities getting mixed, that is obviously unwelcome, and although that is primarily what you ment to discuss, seperating what is already in the game isn't realy a valid topic, they arn't going to rewrite the core design of "successful" copies of the game over a petition, what you should be discussing is your hope and interest that Anet will keep these activities on a choice rather than neccessity basis in future chapters.

From personal observation, PvE players are picky and demanding like PvP players, they are shallow, self serving, and undependable, the only real difference is the level of difficulty between PvP play and PvE play, and obviously PvP play is harder, and thus PvP players have more reasons to demand more.

Since I am already confident that Anet intends to add different modes of gameplay in each chapter, I don't feel the urge to pester or petition over aspects that I find undesirable about a specific chapter, they are most likely going to make an original activity in chapter 3 and 4 and 5, and will likely not repeat previous material.

With constantly altering themes and gameplay modes in an imaginably long chain of chapters it is a waste of time trying to get Anet to change a chapter they have already finished, expecially over preferance. They will make sure this chapter works correctly, and perhaps modify some qualities to make them more enjoyable, but they arn't going to rewrite this or the last chapter wile they are in the process of creating the 3rd chapter and planning a 4th. Best suggestion for your suggestions, ask for a different or specific type of content in future chapters, allow people who enjoy this chapter to enjoy it, and hope they make a chapter more to your preferances in the future.

You can't make a vote over who wants to keep certain aspects and who wants to toss them, serving certain players preferance isn't justification to take away something someone else is enjoying, unless it is an imbalance, it isn't right. Many people enjoy the way this game is played, even more people enjoy being able to play PvP and PvE, with their characters, those people are playing the game. Rationally, people on these forums are here because they have a beef, or they have a dream, the vast majority of regular players are on the game and don't come to the forums, so trying to take a partial show of hands amongst only a portion of the players is misleading and invalid, it isn't an accurate measure of player interest.

Now I would love if Anet tolk an in game poll allowing all active players to voice their satisfaction with current and concept material, but trying to get a /signed, /notsigned petition is obviously inaccurate.

The rewrote starwars galaxies didn't they? what happen to them? Even a great improvement isn't acceptable if you already laid a foundation for the game, adding new stuff to the game is a great option, but taking away old activities wile only piss of as many people as it pleases, and it is usually the hardcore population that is pissed off, they are the ones who are actually playing the current content alot. Fortunatly Anet has designed a game with the opportunity to explore very different kinds of gameplay in each chapter, so it is perfectly possible for them to add something very unique in the future, but, yet again, taking away something that we already have causes just as much dislikes as likes, and unless something can be done to improve gameplay for all interests, it is best to leave the game the way it is.

It would have been nice if you had actually read the OP before such a long and repetitive discourse.

Can someone PLEASE come up with anything other than FoW/UW access as that has already been flamed about a million times? I am not saying if its right or wrong, just that I would asume ANEt has already noted the disturbance its causing and has either decided it to remain, or is currently working on an alternate system.

So how else does PvP affect the PvE realm.

But what kinda idiot are you!!!!!!!
WOW is the worst for politics but they do the same thing. EVE playes for territory in space, Dark ages of camalot fight for kingdoms and expansion.

what makes GW unique is...
1: ITS FREE
2: 8 skills and 1 elite skill limit. ( balanced sometimes a lil to balanced )
3: lvl 20/ armour caps.. ( fast character building, no excessive/ progressive armour for logevity of playtime. ( IE. WOW PvP armours )
I am pizzed because they put the politics in GW.
serously go look up some info before posting.lol

ty for the laugh.

fighting for favor ok. that i can live with its a much brouder scale and i can still do 95% of all aspects of the game.

Faction control of towns and what can be done. bad idea.
they need to put the crack pipe down,.. regain their thoughts and fix the 2 games played. ( ie. GW PvP, GW PvE ). 2 very different parts in the same game played seperate due to personal taste.

TOTALLY /AGREE!

That's absurd, as I stated that it was possible to do all out PvP, but it was completely unrealistic. Have you seen the premades? Every one of them are absolutely horrible and you will only be able to play (and lose) RA and TA using them. And furthermore, have you played the arenas? They are horrendously slow for gaining faction and achieving unlocks. Such an endeavor would take ten times as long as it would through PvE. Although PvE is quicker, to most PvP players, it is not entertaining in the least, and that is where the complaints open up. Using premades is a ridiculous idea because it only opens RA and TA, the lowest forms of PvP, and it would take incredible amounts of time to get out of the arenas due to the incredibly low faction and experience (of the player his or herself) gain over time. I never said that PvP-only was impossible, but it certainly remains impractical.

That said, no one has offered a valid arguement as to why PvP affects the PvE side. PvP rewards should not carry over. Like what? Rank emotes? I could care less about emoting in PvE, and other than that there are things like guild rank and faction, and which of those carry over? If you want to argue the Kurzick/Luxon faction, the alliances with the most are and will always be PvE alliances because of the simplicity of faction farming there rather than in PvP. FoW/UW access are merely representations of the number of people playing from a certain region. The regions with the most people playing (represented through tombs) get the access to these areas. If you want to argue that they should be available to everyone at all times, then I am with you entirely, but as for having another PvE-based system of determining favor for these places, it seems monotonous because the region with the greatest population on the game at the time will control favor. This is based on the assumption that the same proportion of people from each area engage in tombs and with the same skill level, which I believe is fair because from each region there is always a great influx of people just getting the game and using tombs as a starting point or people just starting PvP, as tombs is one of the beginner arenas. Also, the second assumption of skill level is covered by the popularity of cookie-cutter flavor of the month builds that people run to hold hall and farm fame (ranger spike, necro spike, iway, dual migraine+spiteful, etc).

Thanks you romO, for giving such a great argument in favor of the seperation of PvP and PvE.

This is false. Those individuals have existed in the random arenas for a very long time. I first began noticing it when they introduced the priest of balthazar rewards. They could be doing this for account selling, but who knows for sure.

This would assume that the function was coded with no logic at all. Even if it went this route, the simple fix would be to place logic within who has rights to it. Easiest way to do so would be to default it to people with the most faction, exp, or rank overal. Having a combination of those traits, the person could not have afk'd their way through the game. Also, it could be extended in a different direction into how the game distributes the rewards, penalizing those who are afk and possibly making it dynamic enough to hinder/slow down those who attempt to bot it.

The only real sad truth is that once you are in a mission area, you are stuck with your team and it doesn't matter if it is a pvp or pve setting.

Wrong, see above. It will continue if only out of spite in order to grief the rest of the group. This behavior occurs in alot of different places. If anything, you could reduce it to only grief style play by removing all rewards entirely and leaving just the core game mechanics at hand. The only people that would really be overly upset with that would be the pve only players, since it takes the carrot off the stick. High end pvp via gvg fights cant be done afk anyway and typically build up to the tournaments that are held occasionally and the reward is winning the tournament or performing well, which also has nothing to do with afk people.

This is entirely an assumption that is easily answered with a question in return. Would DAOC be as good of a game as it is, if the pvp element was removed entirely? Do not discredit the pvp content of the game or pretend that having simply more pve content makes a game better overal. Most of the best games are all about the replay value, not the single play through content value. This is almost, by definition, the difference between a story and a game. The story will get old after the first experience of it, but a game will continue to be fresh as long as there are others to play it with.

Player ignorance is not a game design issue. The pve centered players have a myriad of quests sprinkled throughout the game, which give rewards. This is the same kind of weak argument that was presented when faction rewards for balthazar were first introduced. The pve person should not care what a pvp person is doing, unless they are interested in competing with those pvp people. Otherwise there is no interaction at all and the comparison is pointless. What does happen is the pvp person, when looking for a goal for character completion, looks for a similar "shortest route" for completion and will use the pve side to achieve it. Increasing the rewards for the pvp side, merely puts the pvp player back into the favored element, instead of finding new ways to exploit the pve system in place. This was easily observed prior to factions release with the "runners" style of play to move multiple characters through key points to maximise skill aquisition versus hours spent playing. You also illustrate my point elegantly with the following.

Had the rewards for the pvp been higher, this would not have come to pass. Even still, you are blaming pvpers for exploiting the easier setting of pve, since pvp rewards are not guarenteed and are more dependant on having a large pool of players wanting to use the system. A easy reference would be to look up any thread complaining about how long it takes to enter some of the mission battle areas.

It takes far longer to balance a system where people are competing against people in a complex or dynamic environment(s). Alot of the problems arise when the on paper mechanics do not accuratly reflect the in play mechanics. There is only challenge tuning for a pve only setting, which takes less time as it can be more reliant on the on paper mechanics and player alteration is viewed as enginuity typically. This is dicounting bugs or unintended effects of course. You should have used hypothosis instead of theory.

Considering the time investement for just mission completions, many would argue the pve as a "mini game" by comparison to pvp mastery. The two playstyles are very different as well. This is due to the inherent differences between AI logic and the logic of other people. This is why the skill balancing is largely based off of the pvp aspect. Even when it does affect the pve, its rather minor as a whole and still easy to work around due to the AI and mob distribution.


There are plenty of people who are competing in their own pve ways. One of them being the town ownership. Another is market manipulation, as if they were trading stock on wall street. You may not like competition, but it does come in various forms and much of your argument is supporting the idea that even pve individuals are competitive. The fact they aren't taking an axe to another player's head is irrellevant.

Since you dont actually play in them, how exactly are you qualified in making the statment that people in fact do not use the feature that is pvp? The reality is people do play them and it did hit the mark and people wouldnt complain about time between matches, if they also didnt enjoy doing them. Do not continue to make the mistake of blaming other people's laziness on the game design or justify it as a valid excuse for those individuals. The game as a whole would be better off with those people banned from it, along with all the botters in various other locations, but that's a different witch hunt altogether.

You failed to prove much of anything through experience in your telling and merely spouted off your opinion. I doubt anyone would buy a game without any "conflict" in it, as there would be no point of interest. Of course they could jus be like a quote from spaceballs and be the, "search for more money" with no conflict and just more money and time sinks like endless cut and paste fedex quests re-using the same areas or the same areas with a different skin so you can acumulate virtual wealth to obtain some meaningless item into eternity. Hell, instead of mobs they could just put random obstacles and traps and have it timed. Hmm, this sounds more of an idea for a game that came out back in the late 80s or early 90s.

... No conflict? yawn

This would go aginst everything Guild Wars was based on.
/not Signed

Well, yes, there is a large arguement for the separation of PvP and PvE, but there are a great number of PvE players complaining (as this has been known as primarily a PvE forum) that PvP interferes with their gameplay. The separation of PvP and PvE arguement that I logically see only involves the removal of PvE from the PvP spectrum, as the reverse was never necessary to begin with. This is why it seems to be quite a quandry up until this point. There is a valid arguement to be made for this idea, yet the majority of /signed votes have come from PvE players, who do not feel the repercussions of this relationship anyway. I'm just having a hard time finding the basis for that viewpoint.

Sorry, but 3 words in the middle of the paragraph didn't stand out as the topic of the suggestion, I will examine further in the future.

Aside from that, I believe PvP characters should have improved customization abilities, not be seperate from PvE players, this doesn't allow people to switch to alternate builds quickly for PvP mockups with their PvE friends playing PvP. It doesn't hurt my feelings that quick throw together PvP characters don't have the superior customization PvE builds do, but they don't need to be seperate, all you have to do is put PvP and PvE on equal ground, not seperate them.

P.S. Better sentence structure would have avoided confusion. I.E. "I would like future chapters to excersise better seperation of PvP and PvE." Mixing a primary intention into the middle of the last paragraph doesn't sink your point.

Thanks for your input. Next time I will consult an English prof. before posting on these forums.

After all that "spouting" I found not a thing that added to the conversation at hand. It was perhaps the longest most wordy "flame" I've ever seen. lol

The one thing you did help me do with that though, is prove that PvE players and PvP players do not mix and should not be "pushed" together via game design. Many thanks for helping me show that.

Well if your only playing half the game shouldn't you only expect half the rewards?

I digress from this line of thought. Although I do believe certain pve to pvp favors could use a rework.

Guild Wars is not a standard MMO. It was not created that way. Its PvE has always been a sort of training for PvP, but you don't have to take that path however and can solely engage in PvE or PvP is that is your thing. The problem is when PvP INFLUENCES PvE with its Favors System or Alliance battles which really affects the content PvE players can access.

My solution is to increment the quantity of PvE players can access such content by increasing the chance for EVERYONE making it a fair chance OR rework the PvP/PvE system. We dont see any PvE "directly" influencing PvP or that is what many of the PvE sole players believe. truth is they are quite wrong as PvE dedicated players into PvP are superior then normal PvP only characters and all because through PvPing they access PvE areas to obtain the equipment and there much needed perfect modifiers and variety to be more otpimal in PvP.

That is why I believe that the real solution is to increment the possibility of other players reaching the content.

For example the original favor system could utilize Balthazar's Factions instead for anyone to access FoW/UW. Somone said 1000 faction points. I lean closer to the a much bigger faction mark but only to avoid constant access to UW/FoW. Something like 10K Balthazar's faction ~ to 5K range to avoid constant entrance to UW/FoW. Likewise Alliances must be reworked perhaps by allowing controlling Guilds to open Elite Missions for same Faction allied players of diffrent un-allied non controlling Guilds for some sort of fee that CANNOt be used to mantain control of Town. Also Faction degeneration whic worsens as time passess so as to allow other Guilds a chance and limiting Guilds by member total number instead of by Guilds.

All in all the problem right now is the sort of "influence" PvP has over PvE content.

You really don't understand the problem at all. I have a better idea for how to make PVE influence PVP in much the same manner as the favour system currently works. In order for you to compete in any PVP matches, a randomly selected group (of PVE players) that is currently working on Thunderhead Keep must succeed in that mission. You must wait from the time the next group enters the mission to the time they either succeed or fail. If they fail, you and your team cannot partake in any PVP for the next five hours. That's how stupid the Favour system is.

Why do you care if people have constant access to UW/FoW? Does it affect you in any way? Nope. Well, not unless you are mentally defective, and can only value your accomplishments if you create artificial barriers to other people also completing those accomplishments. If that's the case, then you'd likely be much happier playing a crappy EQ clone like WoW.

Personally I feel sorry for people who don't play both PvE and PvP because I feel that people who play both gain the best understanding of the game. The biggest example of this is how you see Mesmers and assassins never getting picked up in the PvE side of things. If you pvped at all you'd know how strong Mesmers and assassins can be. Also the anytime you see a W/Mo on a team in PvP people automatically think "Hmm must be a noob pug. Time to roll another Noobway" Yet some of the top guilds use W/Mos and make them work efficiently, iQs CoP Warriors being a good example. Its pretty funny how you see all the people down skills that are great in PvE (Mending) in PvP till they see them used efficiently (WM Game #3 against Char).

I believe I stated THAT as the PROBLEM: PvP INFLUENCING PvE CONTENT!

Constant access to UW/FoW will degenerate it to a Bot Farm area. THAT is not good for the economy as even ArenaNet has remarke on this time again.

I DO know what the situation is. Thank you very much.

However had you paid attention I stated that ArenaNets original Setup seemed to have been trying to unite PvE and PvP, just that they chose a wrong method or form.

When you have pvp players come in to pve and really want to change it. It is bad. I have to been to fourms where pvp players would say pve should be harder. RPG players don't want hack and slash they want story. they puzzles figure out. They want to talk to npcs. Then they want more story. Rpg players want a world. How meny times Have i see pvp players say to a rpg player why would you do that or wwhy would you do that. For exmaple exploring, there where pvp players saying why would you want to do that. adventure is a part of rpgs. I think that adding true rpg to gw would make this game hole alot better.

Here is a exmple rpg player want clothes, weather, and stuff like that. must pvp players would say that is a waste. Rpg players want night and day, pvp players would say why?

How will the pve get better when you have pvp players who want to destroy it. look at the skills unlock for example. rpg want to work for their skills. pvp players want all their skills now.

Im a PvP Player and I say all these you mention are exactly what PvE needs...

Still PvE people need to know the limits that this isnt a usual MMO like say WoW or Conquer Online. So its setup is diffrent. I say this because many PvE players in other MMOs are actually Grind type players and in GW that same logic does not apply.

This might be a reason why excessive farming exists seeing as pvE people cannot Grind for levels so instead grind for stuff (or faction as is the case in Factions)

Had the PvE have more uber interesting and rewardable Quests, Storyline, Quest Events, Story Events, Mini Games, Non Story Missions and other things to DO rather then just grind farm or grind faction, like that Catcombs idea with multiple underground levels with Quests and high rewards the lower you go.

I AM also a PvE player. I play currently Runescape (less now), Conquer Online, Maple Story, Rakion, WoW (quitted after the Paladin fiasco might return some time), Achaea (text absed MUD) and in short any MMO (Once I have time Ill try out Mu Online, Lineage, Knights Online, etc)

Most MMO always have a serious probelm with:

-hording where players become obsessed with hording massive amounts of wealth which they never use (Whats the point of having money if you arent going to spend it or cringe when you will?)

-Botting for that same reason to but this time to make actual RL cash, illegally benefitting from propietary MMO games.

-Trashing newer players without realizing THEY ARE the games LIFELINE and BLOOD, instead of helping them (Achaea is about the only exception to this rule and Conquer Online to a certain extent due to the Power Level/Virtue System), which turns potential players away and drive the game to a state of dead inactivity.

-Acting like immature pricks and demanding from the Devs to accomdate all their whims or acting like pricks in game and treating others badly and being jerks.

-Creating INFLATION WHICH KILLS the ECONOMY and drives IT DEAD, with overpriced commodities (Diablo for example) not to mention alienating newer players. See third reason.

Im pretty sure there are other more potential reasons that also apply to GW sance PKing issues (Very very problematic in Conquer Onlineor games with open map open PK styles)

I dont want GW to end up like that or at least hopefully have minor issues compared to actual MMOs. Any PvP Player who thinks hes all God and Mighty for playing PvP should check again: GW isnt much without PvE just another much better Rakion.

the curret state of factions is grind

grind = hack and slash

you have to grind to gain faction, all grind is anit rpg


you now have to grind to gain skills in factions too. In the first gw you did not need to grind to gain skills. you did the quest and you got them. Now you have to grind to gain your skills.

factions is all grind, sure people get more gold wich is a good thing but it is grind.


hack and slash is not rpg, and nothing to do with it. how long will it take till hscking and slashing throught monsters gets boring.



on top of that new players will not want to buy the newer chapters why because the game would be way too hard for them.


I awould agree with you Zhou Feng 100%

Integrating PvE and PvP into the same game is a good idea - basically.

Adressing the OP's concern that PvEers and PvPers seem to often flame each other - that's unfortunately true. As I see it, the three major sources of flamewars origin there:

a) PvP only players repeating the #1 bullshit line over and over and over: "GW is a PvP game"... There is no quicker way to make a PvE player go nuclear than this....
b) arrogant GvGers claiming all the time that all that matters in GW is GvG and that it's the only thing requiring any skill anyway.
c) PvEers who will tell PvP players that what they do is "dull", "boring" and "repetitive"

In large parts, that's not the game's problem - it's a player problem.

Personally, I like to have both PvP and PvE parts in the game that I can both access and enjoy. The one thing that HAS to be take into account is that there ARE players who play PvE only and players who play PvP only, and that neither of any likes to be forced to play something they don't want to.

Good integration of PvE and PvP: The factions system. There are both PvE and PvP means to gather faction and both PvE and PvP influence the game. Still, nobody is forced to play anything they don't like.

Bad integration of PvE and PvP: The favor system. It basically forces PvE players to PvP if they want to access PvE areas... bah...

Conclusion: I like PvP and PvE to be integrated, but I'd like them integrated in a smart way.

There is a difference between copetition and opposition. Competition is 'to walk together.' Opposition is 'positioning aagainst,' more-or-less. The current Guild Wars set-up advertizes competition but means opposition.

I use this example because it is the best I expect to be recognizable by the largest audience. In the Lord of the Rings, the companions are in opposition to orcs, nazgul, Sauron. Gimli and Legolas are in competition.

PvE competitive events can exist. Defend the wall scenarios with a who can last the longest befor being overwhealmed/captured by the mobs scenario. (There is a story line we havn't had - the prison break or break form the slave mines - unable to put on your armor or use your weapons until your free.) A monster hunt to see which team can take out the most monsters before time. A monster rampage to see which team can take out the most attacking mobs, but no defend (the wall) set, just open ground. An orienteering competition to see who can reach the most map points first, with mobs in the way. These things would be competition, not opposition.

All PvP play currently is based upon opposition. None of it requires any respect andit has several issues with drops, disconnects, and player sabotage. I have seen a player deliberately show up to die costing his team several resurrects (time and energy) before he laughed about doing this. I have seen people disappear in the middle of fighting. (I would like the AI to take over the Icon of any player that ceased to be connected and run it to the end of the match or until the player reconnects and thereon resumes their active control in the match.) This latter would not stop drops, but map-outs can be blocked. I would like to see a pre-combat and post combat period in which all players meet in a line or better circle formation and /salute before they may be whisked to their corners and given 60 seconds for dicussion of strategy. Then once the contest is complete another meet in the a line or circle formation to salute before the match releases the map-block. Anyone disrespectful in virctory, during match, or defeat becomes reportable and may be banned for it.

I am for redefining PvE involvement with PvP and elimination of the Favor and Faction control of access to any content area. We paid to play in real money as casual players. The way to combat bots is to lessen the obstacle players have in getting what they want. It is not in restricting access to content - that is like prohibition. Prohibition only creates and supports the industry.

Fitz

This is my biggest gripe with Factions. I've tried this mission several times only to end up failing before I could even reach the "main objective". I don't really like being FORCED to play with complete strangers that may or may not have a clue as to what they are doing.

Likewise I never use Pick-Up-Groups simply because I don't want all the hassle and grief that may occur with complete strangers. My online time is for fun, either alone or with a few good friends. And that means that mostly we are a 2-3 people with some henchies (which makes this a good time to complain about the lack of control over the henchies...).

The PvP and CoOP "features" that "force" me to play with strangers are the things I really don't like. I couldn't care less about HoH. Sure some PvP'ers battle it out and in the end open it up for their "home district"... so long as it's "evenly" distributed I'm okay with that. If the Fissure of Woe became restricted to only those PvP'ers I would not be okay with that.

Likewise I'm not okay with the Alliance/Faction-grind to gain entry to some PvE missions in Factions. Mainly for the above mentioned reasons.

As for PvP I have no interest in that. Mainly because I feel it takes too much time min/maxing and perfecting a build, and partly because I'm a sore loser. Sure it's fun to kick some one's arse, but when it's your arse it's not fun anymore .

So to summarize, I'll gladly support anything that would allow me to PvE all I want without ever having to think of other people outside my "group" and most specifically to never think about PvP.

Guild Wars has the opportunity to bridge international lines in good ways. The divisions because of server structure lessen the chances for this. Most people who play are likely to make and maintain a few close friends of similar background. All the people I play with regularly have something major in common with me. Four of them have military background or are currently enlisted in some capacity.

The current system does push for larger groups of casual or fleeting acquantance. This is fine for extraverts at one end of the spectrum. It is not the preference of those more towards the middle or who are introverted. One who is more into PvP will most likely have a small group of friends that are the same. One into PvE will most likely have a small group of friends that are the same.

It might be interesting for GW to manage an Alliance War. It would be interesting to see 1,000 man teams in combat. However, the number of players that would want to partake rather than observe such a war is most likely limited. Further, this would require a completely different comm.s system and a completely differnt guild ranking system. At that level regular military ranks woulld be needed. (Although, the Soviets did defeat the Brittish/American invasion at Archangel using armies that had no titular ranks.)

Currently there is benefit for PvP to play PvE, they may open skills and get goods. There is no reason for a PvE player to PvP as the skills they open remain unavailable and there are no rewards such as reskinning one's items.

Fitz

"truth is they are quite wrong as PvE dedicated players into PvP are superior then normal PvP only characters and all because through PvPing they access PvE areas to obtain the equipment and there much needed perfect modifiers and variety to be more otpimal in PvP."

If you wanted to complain that PVP influences PVE, then maybe you should make sure that your post is coherent first.

What do you care about the economy of the game? If everybody has access to various items because they have become extremely common then everyone benefits.

I think PvP needs a "story battle" (See the threads where people want PvP chars in Aspenwood etc).

I agree Fitz, we need incentives to play 1 form or another.

PvP needs a new incentive to play PvE, or at least WITH PvE players.

PvP and PvE missions would rock!

Imagine an optional mission (like Dragon's Throat) where a PvP team and a PvE team meet up to accomplish the same goal. It would involve beating a team of the opposing faction, but the PvP players will only battle the other PvP players, while the PvE players battle NPCs or trigger switches to help their PvP teammates.

The PvP players would get balthazar + their alliance faction as well as some new form of recognition like battle medals or something...stars, thats exclusive to helping PvE players.

The PvE players would of course get the mission done, gain XP, gain cash, maybe get drops and access to chests.

I mentioned earlier in this thread a PvE to PvP incentive such as new armors that require Balthazar Faction to purchase (which would also be unlockable for PvP characters, if they gain enough medals).

The only hitch would be getting the players to actually NOT fight each other (ie: the PvP team or the PvE team insulting their own members). But thats about people, not game design.

I have to also put down that there is alot pvp players who don't even know what a rpg is really. They compare it to must mmorpg out there that are made for grind.

/NOT SIGNED, not even for a million dollars.

EDIT: Guild wars is still a CO-RPG. Not mmorpg.

CO-RPG (Competitive online roleplaying game)

And the meek shall inhearet the earth.
Without the masses speaking there dissaproval nothing will change.

as has already been stated Pvpers must Pve to be top level competitive. I need to get multiple suits of armor for different situations and more than 2 weapon swaps etc.


I happen to love pve even though its difficulty is fairly low in comparison to most pvp. real people are jsut generally tougher than AI

the more integration the more interesting things happen.

the more story driven ideas for some pvp ideas would be neat.


People have preferences I'm sure there places and in fact someone mentioned coops as also being hated. these indicate to me that there is not really a massive divide between the far sides but rather just differences in specific preferences. some people love fed ex quests and running over the same terrain twice, those quests make me want to punch things.

some like freedom and preferred prophecies because in pve and pvp originally you could wander almost freely, run to misisons jump right into any level of pvp etc.

with the addition of battle isles and factions locked gates anet basically is saying those who play the game cna't be trusted to play how they want and in essence these limitations are outwardly imposed upon us.

so to show that this has relevance ot the discussion at hand I would note that it is the restriction of choice which many on both sides hate.

Liking as I do both modes of gameplay I'd love to see everyon who starts a thread like this quit since its clear what GW offers you don't want and since I prefer what GW offers and would rather not have a repeat of the moaning about elite misisons which resulted in changes.

Don't get me wrong listening to your fanbase is ok I guess but design by commitee or the masses is a fast way to ruin a game.

I'm quite glad they know enough to ignore most of these "suggestions"

and if you think I'm being abrasive or incendiary or whatever, Thx.

First of all to the OP - /not signed.


Second of all I agree 100% with your post.


The thing it seems to be with Guild Wars lately (and I see it ALOT in the responses) is that there is a lack of variety/goals/atmosphere. And the integration of it all seems to be the problem.

Factions started a trend that seems to fix this but they will need to take it to another level. Bigger, better, and more fleshed.

I would rant more than that but there seems to be a number of spin doctors waiting to say things should be divided.

No, I don't think you are abrasive and enjoyed most of your post, except the end. These (and other) forums are full of suggestions. Do you really think that all those people should quit? A lot of game improvements have come about because of these forums. The game is constantly evolving and it is through player input on fansite forums that Anet gets a better idea of what the players want. There seems to be a lot of discontent with Factions in that it doesn't measure up to the standards set by Prophecies. We have a right .... no, a duty .... to inform Anet of our disatisfaction and even to offer up suggestions and how to improve future chapters.

There are a lot of good ideas and suggestions here for improving future chapters. Thanks all.

And to all of you who oppose my original suggestion ..... thanks for doing so in an intelligent and civil manner.

Just add a tick on the beginning: 'I don't want to participate in PvP with this PvE chara at all.', after which you won't be allowed in Aspenwood, Quarry, Arenas and anything else PvP related, and if you leave that tick unchecked, you can do everything you can do now :P

Whatever they did to 'bring PvP closer to PvE' is only good from my PoV, as I actually got some feint interest in the PvP portion of the game thanks to Factions. And only thing that really seems to be 'PvP closer to PvE' in factions is.. umm. Um. What, actually? Playing through the storyline in Factions, there is not a single quest or a mission that you have to complete, that features fighting other players.

Yes, there are Alliance Battles, yes, there is Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry. But hey, you don't have to do them if you hate PvP. You can do the Challenge Quests, you can do the repeatable quests! The initial idea in Factions was that both PvE-only and PvP-only people can donate to the 'cause' by donating faction, be it on PvP chara from Alliance battles, or repeatable quests/challenge missions on PvE chara, or those who like both PvP and PvE; Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry. Looks like a great deal to me :P

And don't start with 'but Aspenwood gives better factions than repeatables :'(((', the repeatable quests are much faster.

even on these forums if you look at who is posting in these threads its nearly the same people every time. thos eof us posting in these places have agendas.

In my case its to go directly against your particular opinions about the game.
make no mistake If we want to be honest the two so called sides have specific agendas and it is in reality altering the game to specifically fit a very particular mode of play. they do not want to bring people together for if they did they wouldn't suggest ideas which promote divisiveness.


my personal agenda has to do with eliminating the two categories because i despise sides and categories unless they are fictional liek the lux kurz

I don't want people to use the terms pve and pvp i want them to say when you are playing the game and mean the entirety of it.


I recognize this idea is jsut as absurd as the other two sides but unlike them I perfectly content to leave the developing to the developers and play as close to what i wish within the framework of the game they design.

I am against limitaitons to how i integrate the two so called gameplay types.

If you actually read any of it and didnt stop at where i began to comment about your opinions not based upon game history, you might have actually came up with a point.

If you are basing this opinion on my comments comming as a pvp only player, then you are wrong as i do both in roughly equal quantities, but lately tilting to the pve side for exploration just for the hell of it.

The sad truth is that, my commentary didnt reinforce your points on any of the points you tried to make. So, instead of going down the route of conflict you attempt to bow out of it, by just ignoring everything i stated. That does not make any of your statements valid.

I am curious though if you have even played in another online game environment that is either solely pve or pvp and then took the time to compare the two. Then take it a step further and compare them against other designs where the pve and pvp are blended. Then take it a step even further where you analyze the overal effects of free formed pvp in pve environments, versus structured pvp settings such as the ones found within guild wars. It would appear you haven't even begun to scratch the surface for analysis as you are so dismissive of everything not currently within your own tunnel vision. Simply stated, seperating the two in this environment detrects greatly from both.

Sorry, but I know a lot of people who enjoy playing both aspects of the game. It is also already mentioned that Anet has been trying to bring PvE and PvP together (or... PvE players towards PvP). By suggesting this idea would only be rendering their efforts useless. I doubt Anet will ever split the two types of gameplay and I hope they never will.

/not signed