[MERGED - OFFICIAL] Dueling aka 1v1

Suppose your hireing for your guild, It would be really nice to be able to duel someone, just to make sure they know what they're doing. and it would just be a nice fun thing to have if your waiting in the guildhall for your friends to get on..(which can take a LLLOOOONNNGGG time)

Well, first things first; this would fall pretty much into the category of 1v1 duels. Even if its intention is only to allow guild leaders to test out prospective members, you'd want to do a search for any of the 1v1 threads and see what people think.


P.S.: Thanks for the catch Flame, I was first going to type "I know for a fact that you're lying about your signature," but changed my thought in the middle of my sentence, and that was the result. No need to sound so pissy about it though.

P.P.S.: Ahh, now that signature is much more family friendly. I'm feeling the love

And I know for a fact that your post says...
"I know for a fact that you are signature does not mean 'you are my friend.'"

If you want to test someone's abilities, go with them to some arena. A one-on-one duel will not give you any idea on how well they fight in team situations.

I've really never understood why this idea is so heavily opposed. No, the game isn't balance for it and it serves no real purpose, but that doesn't matter. It's something that many people would obviously like to be able to do for fun. Those who participate in it will do so in private instances, away from the public eye. Those who don't like dueling never even have to see a duel, let alone participate in one. If people want to be able to have consentual one on one fights with each other, let them do it. It doesn't hurt anything.

1v1 would still be very nice to play, and since you can solo the main missions you should be able to solo a pvp fight

I actually don't really have any stand on the matter; if it's added, that's all fine and dandy. If it's not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. As long as it can be put in the right way I'd be fine doing it, since I have some friends who I want to take on at some point in the Arena but don't want to be on any other team besides the one I'm on...

That's more or less my stance as well. I've never been a big fan of dueling, and I doubt I'd make use of it much, if at all. The reason I'm always quick to defend the idea is that, while dueling isn't necessarily something I'm going to lose any sleep over, the view that "I don't want to do it, so other people shouldn't be able to do it either" has always baffled me. I don't think it's conducive to the overall health of the game, and in the end, it seems to be the only real argument for not having something like this.

I would be all for 1v1 (probably use it) but I'm not, since most likely all the little noobies will start basing charactors on 1v1, and that would lead to balancing that effects the *real* game.

Mabe if it were only useable by high lvl guild members and the kiddies couldnt get there hands on it, then it would be cool. Fat chance they'd alow that though.

Ive said I think it would be a good addition, now im gonna sit back and watch as this topic get shoved under the table once agin.

Well, The person who wins would'nt necessarily be better. Some classes just do better than other classes. This wouldn't be much about skill, A bit, But not much. Anyways, You would get a fair amount of xp for killing another foe which could be abused. Let's say a low level person wants to level easily. A higher person helps him. So, All they have to do to get some easy xp is duel, and just have the higher character do nothing and/or weaken himself.(Frenzy, Various Necro skills, etc.)

If this was impimented most of us belive it should have no rewards. Meaning no exp or anything gained.

Oh god yeah. That's what always happens when people start dueling. They want the one uber class that can out duel anyone so they can pwn all by themselves, and the concept of guildfights gets pushed further and further back.

However dueling can be fun, so maybe a method like only other guildmates, or only one map, with no xp to be gained from it. Just something to re-inforce the fact that this game isn't desgined for that.

"A false sense of security."

That is what it promotes, both for guild leaders and the player.

The reason?...They go into guild battle, get slaughtered relying on what they did in a 1v1 battle, and keep doing it, then since their builds that kick ass 1v1 didn't work in guild versus guild, they complain to Arena.net. Arena.net kindly listens and the person then feels they didn't because nothing is changed. Multiply this by the percentage of the market you want to attract and this is a problem. There is this small but ever growing group of posts being done at WOW and other fansites about "GuildWars crappy 1v1." and how "Aren.net won't do anything about it, they are just like blahblah." It is a form of market erosion that Arena.net doesn't need, especially so soon, with their first offering.

Maybe something people want. I have even supported a dueling so that people could test a build, but I started to recant and have turned back to not liking it for the above reason. This is why you will hear people say "the game isn't made for that." So in that consideration of how people actually are once you open a can of worms/Pandora's box--give them an inch then they want a mile--and how it would discourage GuildWars growth curve, do you continue to believe dueling is so vital? Remember it is misleading no matter who wins the 1v1 and also remember Arena.net can warn them of that till they're blue in the face, so to speak, it won't mean anything to the person who is sure they should have won because they took down the guildleader in 7 seconds 15 times no matter what build he had--No one qualifying that win, or the opponent's loss, with the lack of 7 other players (i.e. 14 other professions).

Please understand all of the above may be a reason to hold out hope. Once the game has a solid and established base of users and growth curve Arena.net could rebalance the entire game to meet the needs of players who want 1v1. They might actually sacrifice their successful guild versus guild matrix as it is right now for a more risky model that would provide 1v1 if there is such a thing. Understand the correlative to implementing 1v1: At this time guild versus guild will have to suffer if they make the game 1v1 compatible to avoid market erosion from the lost 1v1 crowd (market). So the 1v1 market has to be larger than the amount of people they will lose by weakening the guild versus guild.

I am sure someone is already thinking of the forum poll about 1v1 that had 50 people saying yes. I salute you for consider the most irrelevant information possible as that is not potential market and you have no way to separate out who that voted is new or who is a potential buyer, and this is where the translation of why it's a bad idea is getting lost to the current players.

Please, before you who want this so badly find contempt for what I have said look at it and consider the interrelation of it too. I think you'll find it is not unreasonable though it isn't emotionally appealing as the desire for 1v1 and thinking it is some simple thing to implement.

I just don't think it's necessary to do any balancing at all, for 1v1 duels. Put them in the game so that people who want to do it can do it, and then leave it completely alone. If anyone starts trying create builds just to be good at 1v1 and take them into GvG or Tombs, let them. They'll quickly be battered into oblivion and find out that those builds don't work in normal PvP. It's a very small thing, that's being blown way out of proportion. As long as it's understood that Guild Wars isn't really meant to be a 1v1 game, there's no harm at all in letting people have their fun.

Lunar, I know you dont' get it. And that's too bad because it would really be nice if you did. But we can't all have our way now can we? So in the same way you don't get it and no one can force you to the game has no 1v1 dueling. Oh and the more you make of the why it isn't there, the more you answer to what I posted above as to why there is no 1v1. You are making the case for me in the continued not getting it.

My honest hope is that at some point people stop thinking they are being denied something in 1v1 being unavailable. The reason is that to be denied, so far as software is concerned, it had to be something that was intended and even made available, and then withdrawn. 1v1 or dueling was never any of these things. If you all can wrap your minds around that for a few minutes I am hoping you'll see why to implement it requires more than you have thus far been willing to admit, and, why the result without such changes would be Arena.net not giving a damn about misleading players in making such options the game isn't designed for available. When they get their ass kicked in guild versus guild, lunar you assume they'll be reasonable about it. Show me the 100% reasonable society.

Alright knowing this is not likely to occur reasonably and instead will be emotionally charged and filled with looking for "who to blame," who do you think wil be first on the hit list?...

-The other team for cheating, so that's the first email to Arena.net. Our player receives a polite response stating "We are looking into the incident of where you say ACME guild may have violated the EULA" (wasting resources that could be used for expansions).

-Our player feeling they were ignored or nothing happened because when they see the guild in-game the Guild is intact and appears unaffected. So here the next email to Arena.net with the explanation about...."The other team must have cheated because I beat my guild leader in a 1v1 sparring match and his warrior is stronger than any one of their team. There is no way we could have lost to them 35 times." Another polite email response from Arena.net only this time also saying that...."Please be advised that GuildWars was never intended or designed to be played 1v1. We suggest you do not use the outcome of a 1v1 duel as any sort of guide for how well you will perform in guild versus guild events." (Remember Lunar you suggested if they know it's not a 1v1 game then what's the big deal.)

-Our player wanting, what appears "elusive," revenge upon the other team for cheating, a cheating our player remains most certain of based on the 1v1 and all that has proceeded thereafter in a perfecly logical sequence that has been thought out and re-thought out to make sure it leads to the same conclusion. This irrespective of throughout the thought process being emotionally fueled by the embarassment, loss, and desire of revenge responds to arena.net:

"If the game isn't based on 1v1 then why is that available? Why do you guys have something there that I can do to try out my build if it doesn't actually help me with what the game is really about? You really need to re-think this game, maybe make it for 1v1 so that it matters. I am sure it won't take much for you guys to do that since you made such an awesome game, but still [and this is my favorite] I think the other team must have cheated anyway, they had to, there is just no way we could have lost to them like that. I have waited for you guys to do something about it. Just tell me are you gonna or not? I just need to know because I can't play a game if there are gonna be cheaters allowed. I mean how long can it take to investigate this?"

Don't you just love lineal processions of perfect logical certainty? No one can fault the player that relied on 1v1 dueling because it would be incompetent for Arena.net to feature something that people will naturally use as a guide irrespective of all other reasoning. And once they are relying on anything they will badger you to make the game meet what they rely on. This is why all the statements made supporting it right now only make my case as stated in the previous post and actually right here. The lineal procession of perfect logical certainty is already happening, all reason thrown right out the window, and this is without the previous guild v guild loss scenario.

I don't have any desire to duel to try out strategies, or to show how powerful I am, or even initiate people into the guild. I just want to kill my buddies. I want to light them on fire and laugh. I also want to way to solve disputes over talking about peoples moms (etc...). I don't want anything tactical or high falutin. I just want to have fun at my weaker friends expense.

People getting upset over losing a guild battle has nothing to do with one on one fighting. A bad build is a bad build, whether it was created for dueling or not and the sort of person who will accuse their team of cheating because their build didn't work, is going to do that sort of thing anyway. By your logic, PvE shouldn't be in the game either, because someone might find something that works against monsters and be "mislead" into thinking that it will work just as well in PvP.

As has been pointed out before, the game isn't "balanced" for the sort of PvP that takes place in the Gladiator Arena either, but it's in the game anyway, because people wanted it. So far, it hasn't caused anything to implode.

I understand what your'e saying, Sin, but really, you're blowing all of this way out of proportion. Anyone who has absolutely no comprehension of the fact that every build isn't going to work in every situation, and starts accusing other people of cheating the moment they lose, well... that person is, in a word, stupid. If things were constantly left out just to accomodate theoretical stupid people, we'd barely have a shred of a game. Allowing players to fight each other one on one in private is not going to shake the foundations of Guild Wars and cause everything to come crashing down. It's a harmless, fun diversion and those who choose not to participate will barely even know it exists.

Lunar, if I am blowing it out of proportion it is to the same degree you aren't taking this seriously. And I resent the idea that we have to assume anyone is stupid. I am not an elitest. I am interested in not implementing things that just slow down the next expansion. You aren't taking seriously how much what I described will occur. And I don't understand why considering how many times you have seen this question or similar posted....

"I heard the max level is 20? Isn't that kinda low?

Stupid people aren't asking the question, just people who don't understand, they can't wrap their mind around it because of the games they came from and the echos of those games in current players who continue to hang on to old ideas. How can you tell? They will repeat almost this same question, sometimes rephrased, every third reply for at least 4 rotations, why? Disbelief. Disbelief from what they are conditioned to believe is necessary in the game, a disbelief that is never fully neutralized until they wrap their mind around the concept, sometimes that takes playing the game. Herein lies the challenge.

People, including yourself have been told the answer to the 1v1 situation, yet, you remain in disbelief. You aren't being denied anything nor is anyone else who wants it, but you will not hear that because of disbelief. It doesn't matter if logically you can't be denied what the game never offered, what matters is that you want something and someone said no and now you push push push because of disbelief. All the while showing exactly what will happen when people, especially with the massive onslaught that is due, start relying on solo, if it were implemented, and then losing in the team forum, they would take up their cause in disbelief. Your rationale has no bearing on their emotional desire in any greater way than my rationale has had any impact on your emotional desire toward this due to your emotional response to thinking "they shouldn't be denied," and that's all because of disbelief!

So when you can comprehend the parallel that you are demonstrating in claiming this is an overreaction and justifying it by calling them stupid, because it's such a good idea. Just think about that. You are claiming other people who you've never met or known are stupid because of how they might react to what they think is an injustice while the only reason you are doing it is the same emotional reaction--with the same rejection of all rationale to the contrary of your emotional desire. I rest my case with all the evidence provided by all of you, for exactly the scenario I laid out taking place.

Keep pushing for your emotionally necessary 1v1 just because you feel some injustice if it doesn't happen. Thereafter if the expanse isn't all you had hoped, if the skills aren't as good as you had hoped, if some patching isn't done as quickly as is possible, just remember you were forewarned, and you proved out the forewarning was accurate in demanding this be added to the game irrespective of all rationale that has said it will only lead to problems all because of disbelief.

You are also misrepresenting the value of PVE when claiming the rationale applies to it as the PVE is designed for training teamwork. Sure builds are different. However there is a teamwork aspect you learn, coordination, listening, focus fire, many things. None. Not one of these aspects occurs in 1v1 so nothing is gained whatsoever to help someone know their build will work in a team. They can be told this to their face and yet, they think they are testing their build. Look at the threads and their posts for how many want it for testing their build and you'll see just the fraction potential of what will be emailing arena.net about the other team, not their team (as you suggested i said in your post), but the other team cheating in guild versus guild! So now the last part.

Whether Arena.net takes this on or not I remain confident that if they do we will suffer for it as a whole. I am sorry you don't care as is evidenced by summary dismissal under the head "overreacting" when you aren't taking it anywhere near serious. Yes let's let majority rule even if the majority is many times wrong, ask the families of the Salem women who died or take a simple review of the many other episodes in our more recent history. Obviously if a group of people agree to something necessity is proven in fact, not just politics and some like minded people agreeing to something. No absolute necessity is established....Yea right.

I for one have waited 6 months for this game, sure others waited longer and some shorter, I applaud them all and thank them for the support, why? Because now I want this game to deliver over the next 6 years as well as it has the last 6 months. Anything that can or would hinder or disturb that has no useful purpose. This 1v1 issue is one of those things, not because of what you say does or doesn't need to be done, but because Arena.net doesn't do things sloppy.

Sin, just out of technicality, if you make an excuse up for everything, there's no such thing as stupid then. You have to draw a line at some point. Some people choose narrowness as a sign of stupidity. Words like stupid are too vague, and have no definitive standard, so you can't really go "Their not stupid" because that's only by your definition. Of course, we should still be polite, so saying such things shouldn't be encouraged. But that's about the only reason saying stupid is invalid, not the definition itself.

My opinion is to keep this out until the game is at a satisfactory point, which will be at least months or maybe years from now. The game isn't being close to becoming the next big thing in the gaming world, it's fun, but at this point, from scaling and extrapolation, it's more like when warcraft 3 came out. It's not starcraft level in terms of how good it is compared to the games that are out at the same time. So I think ArenaNet should focus on polishing it, balancing it out, and tweak all the things to make this game live up to it's maximum potential with what it has first, then add on these things.

Who knows, maybe after the game gets polished to near-perfection, people will no longer want 1v1 because their mentality is set on teamwork, which would be a good thing. Or maybe there will be a demand for 1v1. But either way, I believe we shouldn't always ask for change, when we haven't even tried to settle down first. It's like buying a house, then changing it every few days, how are you possibly going to satisfy yourself if you can't even get use to something?

Xellos, I totally agree on what Arena.net's focus should be. I am sure you are aware I never said anyone is stupid, my reference to it was in response to someone using "name calling" as a form of justification.

As far as drawing a line, once and a while I draw one. Once and a while I see sometimes some people are mentally challenged, however I do not refer to them as such in sarcasm or a mean way. Some people, usually with an i.q. of less than 80, although I tend to find that being abused as a guage, have a difficulty comprehending quite a bit that most of the people posting to this forum and that are playing GuildWars take for granted. These people, the mentally challenged, aren't playing GuildWars see. Our fellow brethren are, for lack of a better term, "brighter."

Therefore I take offense to any of my fellow players being referred to as stupid, and would rather see those who would so easily name call identify this function of name calling as the great big red flag for them to realize they are becoming emotional about the issue. This is important because whatever reasonableness they may have normally in most situations has just flown right out the window. This thread is riddled with such things by all who have posted to it, and believe me I have a high respect for them merely for playing GuildWars and being in the forums instead of playing WOW or whatever else.

That said, now let's realize none of us are stupid but we can let emotion override our willingness to listen to reason. Such has easily and consistently occured with the 1v1 dueling issue. And please be clear Xellos I make no excuses for those that are mentally challenged, they do not play this game, most you will find don't even have a computer. Yes mentally challenged is a legal condition that I tend to believe no one posting to this forum suffers from until proven wrong.

Your getting way too deep man. I was just saying that stupid is a very vague word, and even though this forum is a mannered one, an occasional word does slip in by almost everyone. I'm just saying to lighten up. Getting frusterated on the internet is a sure sign you need to lighten up.

Remember, I was calling technicality. I have no bias on what was said. Just pointing things out. There's no need to justify yourself to me.

Lastly, it'd be nice to stay on topic if you want to respond to me, respond to my opinions on dueling!

Xellos, I did respond to what you said. I agree with you about what Arena.net should focus on. That is the entirety of my response to what you said. As you may not be aware, I am against dueling. So there is no schedule for me, and I have a greater respect for Arena.net and this program, however to discuss those things as you have is more off topic discussion huh?

So far as being on topic. I don't see you erasing your commentary regarding making excuses right? So where is it you get to comment to me responding to someone else, and are untouched? Expect response too. Suddenly it's taken to another level of meaning "you're taking it too deep." Dude it really isn't my fault others take it too shallow, or more accurately too "tall" as that is the opposite of deep in fact.

This isn't tort and re-tort for the sake of torting as then we are "tortoises" akin to trolls now huh?

This is a serious change to the game that people are just jumping into without considering any of the other elements to it. What else is likely to occur than these be presented. And if someone starts name calling, I didn't choose their weakness, they did, and I try to help them see it so it doesn't happen again. Note I have told no one they are wrong, nor ever said I was right throughout my posts. So please, thank you for your concern for my welfare, however it appears it is very misplaced in consideration of your own.

In any event, your position is yours and I haven't really a problem with it due to it not making any definitive statement, especially a time table, so it really doesn't contemplate affecting future development of the game in a negative way. Should you edit or post otherwise hereafter it is likely just to antagonize so will be ignored.

Enjoy Xellos (By the way it is big of you to think I am justifying myself to you when making a public post read by all.)

I hope you all realize my interest is this game's development not being hindered with side issues that detract from it's own originality. The routine of the gaming industry needs some uniquness to foster more. GuildWars may not be considered a magnanimous achievement by a unanimous concensus, however there is a reasonably generous level of uniqueness to this game that could usher in a larger scale amount of differences in development. Isn't it just a bit too routine what we think these games should require? If they are all so alike no wonder we become bored with them so easily. Finis.

*Edit* For the "too deep" crowd, I am within a short distance of Garden Grove California. Are you all aware of the closing of internet cafes here because someone came in and killed someone else over being beaten in a computer game? So make the effort to realize there is an honest concern out of me here.

Oh Snap, I'm stupid lately.

Hey, it's your choice. But just like you saying those "people" don't think about their suggestions before they post, you should think about your own posts before you post them. Are they effective? Are they worth the time? What target audience are you serving? Blah blah blah. Don't blindly tell people to think before they post when you aren't doing the same.

Whatever Xellos. If you can't tell how much thought has been put into it. Then you must be looking from such a different angle it is impossible to see, and I am sorry for that. Certain I am that what is said won't be effective with you. In that, no matter what is said you seek the right to claim for yourself or the wrong in the other, even if by technicality, some television styled "last word" I guess. It's okay though. See I admire some of your posts here and there. But in this situation you are taking on everything but the issue yourself. Now in that regard, surely I have been far more effective than even you realized. Your response demonstrates this rather more than perfectly, if there is such a thing.

Thank you for your time man. Cya on another part of the board. You have the virtual "floor."

*Edit* So Xellos, in looking at me, ask yourself if maybe what I have said are my reasons really are? Now the answers to all the questions you think I didn't ask myself posting will come to pass. Believe me I really appreciate people that look at things carefully so please take this as a complement. Additionally my "not being obliged" should assist you in realizing I see this very weighty, especially in light of incidences within 2 miles of where I live. Picking up and into what is perceived as an argument, is easy. You want reality try someone being shot over being beaten in a duel. That is the stark lead projectile of reality that few if any wish to have anywhere near them--far more real than any philosophical stances.

Since you basically killed off any chance for me to rebute, I'm just going to say my angle was from all sides, intertwining efficiency with real life and productivity. It's a pessemistic angle, but it seems realistic.

Try looking at Saulasaurus Rex. He always tells people to search, even me sometimes (sorry Rex ). But how successful is he? Not very. He of course still needs to do his job, but you, your not obliged to. And secondly, Rex spends alot less time then you.

So in conclusion, the angle I look at is you.

Sin, Your entire argument seems to be that introducing 1v1 combat will cause people to create builds that work well in 1v1, find out that they don't work well in real PvP, and that this will somehow cause the game to fall apart. If this were the case, it'd fall apart in any situation where different builds were required for different situations.

The fact that PvE has educational value and 1v1 combat doesn't, is completely irrelevant and my point still stands. If there are people who are going to come unhinged whenever they create a build that works in one situation and doesn't work in another, then they're going to do that regardless of what the situation is. They'll do it when their 1v1 build doesn't work in Tombs, they'll do it when their PvE build doesn't work in GvG and they'll do it when their anti-caster build doesn't work against warriors.

You've missed my point completely, as regards the nonexistent "stupid" person. I'm not calling anyone names. What I'm saying, is that you're basing all of your arguments on trying to tailor the game to some hypothethical person who is completely incapable of understanding that not all builds work for all things and is never going to have any cause to get upset when changing situations require changing strategies.

If Guild Wars were going to come undone the moment someone had to modify their build to suit a different type of battle, it would have come undone a long time ago. Your long, complex rants on why GW's delicate balance is foing to be shattered by allowing people to fight each other one on one, in private, is what we call overthinking the situation. You're trying so hard to prove your point that you're concocting doomsday scenarios based entirely on conjecture in which a hypothetical person, in a hypothetical state of mind, is going to have a hypothetical reaction when the build he created for a duel doesn't work in every situation. This reaction will (hypothetically) cause a chain reaction that will cause Guild Wars to come crashing down around our ears.

No, you're right, I can't take that seriously. Plenty of games have implemented duels before when they weren't balanced for them, and none of them that I'm aware of have been destroyed yet because of it. Consentual dueling is and always has been something to do for fun that has no effect whatsoever on the rest of the game.

Wow, he said what I wanted to say in 1 post. I feel so sad.

Err at least the first part.

This is one heated arguement

That is not what I am saying. To you it's insignificant and you are trying to apply that to everyone else. It has nothing to do with the build itself. You want to focus there because that's consistent witht he insignificance you apply to it.

Again: They closed down or are in process of closing down, the internet cafes in Garden Grove California because someone lost a duel, walked into the cafe, and shot the person who beat them. Does this have anytyhing to do with builds? Pay attention! It doesn't. For you I am merely saying the game will fall apart over a build, for me I am suggesting one area of fallout from implementing your most emotionally empassioned need for dueling.

In addition I am also hoping that out of some shread of decency of consideration and to assist you in understanding the weight this has far beyond some isolated vacuum of a game that you appear to only see, there are people, real genuine people, not characters on the screen and their build. These do things and they do things with about the same rationality as those promoting implementation of something into a game that it is entirely not intended nor designed for. The evidence is their non-chalant attitude toward it, as though it happens in a vacuum. It doesn't and you clearly won't recognize that because it truly shows in as great a logic as you can muster that this idea isn't a good one, that people do irrational things and yes companies can be held accountable--look at tobacco companies, gun manufactures, etc. if you are reaching for an example.

So while you may think this idea is isolated, I am sorry it is not. Would you like to talk to the family who lost a loved one and explain to them why 1v1 dueling is necessary in computer games? Consider it all and not just you vacuum please. Consider it on the idea that no one is stupid and no one here is unreasonable because Lunar I know you are not. Let go of the emotional reaction to the idea we must be allowed as we don't have to be allowed anything. EULA makes that perfectly clear. This holds true especially if we are disregarding everything outside the suggestion just because it makes it easier to claim "this is the only thing to think about!, as you point to what you claim is it" Well obviously it isn't.

By the way, to reiterate, considering how the way the game works, it's current mechanics and rules aren't being understood or just being deemed "not required to be changed" (and thus not needing to be considered) only is exactly what my "hypothetical" person is doing isn't it? So really they aren't hypothetical, they are you and all the others who want to take all that is and all other considerations and ignore it for the "I wants."

Also, I never said GuildWars would come undone, that's you all choosing to see something to justify your argument. Please review before you project your perceived drama of what I said on what the words actually were.

Lunar you edited out where you called them stupid. You poor boy. Winning an "argument" is that important to you that you have to edit out what you said? I can't even believe you did this. Such is the cheat as usual, however anyone who read it with any wits about them before 2:44 am may remember. I know I do. And this my friend ends our conversation because you cheated, and in so doing, you evidenced my hypothetical person is entirely and in fact without any question you!

I once respected your opinoins lunar, even supported some down the line. This however has lowered my opinion of you entirely. It is truly loathsome and of zero integrity.

*Edit* Lunar as I look at all the editing you've done to save face, I do apologize for how this thread has affected you. I wish you hadn't let it become emotional to you. I really do. So I do apologize for whatever I said in light of how it appears to have distorted the entire thread regarding your editing of your posts. Very sad indeed.

*Edit* Yay! I found the second reference!

That is what is going on here with the continuation of the argument to have dueling in light of how it is not, IS NOT occuring in a vacuum. I guess when the public outcry goes off again for more than just a rating system, maybe then you'll get the entirety of what I am saying. Maybe when you notice the promises of the expansion are far more than the delivery, maybe then you'll get it. I doubt it though. Goodbye. Enjoy your certainty in your vacuum.

Common arguments against dueling:

"The game isn't balanced for 1v1", "the game isn't designed for it", etc.

So? Dueling leagues have been highly successful and fun in games far more unbalanced than this one.

How does that work? The same way it does in real life. Ever fenced, or even been to a fencing tournament? If not, allow me to explain: there are all kinds of things you could do while fighting someone that are perfectly allowed by the laws of physics but are disallowed by the rules established by those participating in the event. You can't, for example, grab someone's epee out of their hands and punch them in the face. Even though the laws of nature allow this, we can still hold fencing tournaments without difficulty by making such a move against the rules of the contest. Likewise, it is equally irrelevant that certain rules of the game physics and combat engine would make a "no holds barred" match unbalanced. Dueling leagues establish rules regarding what is or isn't allowed in a duel. Now, if two people want to engage one another outside the framework of such a format, well, that's up to them. A duel is not a randomly chosen 1v1 match. A duel is between two people who agree upon, if nothing else, the desire to duel one another.

If you think game balance issues are at all relevant here, you have a profound misunderstanding of what dueling is.

"It will give people false ideas about GvG play."

People will develop false ideas about GvG play doing anything at all other than GvG play if they assume everything in the game is the same. When they get to GvG, they will learn better. This is exactly what occurs now when people have only played PvE and Arena. Since adding dueling doesn't change that any (the guy who developed his strategies based on dueling rather than on PvE is in no worse shape), this is not a valid objection. It's essentially saying what happens right now will continue to happen. This is true whether dueling is implemented or not, so it's neither an argument for nor against it.

"It would require too much effort to implement."

It requires two simple changes. One, allow Arena teams to be formed rather than be random. This is exactly how other parts of the game work, so this is already essentially implemented, it just needs to be enabled in the Arena, or an Arena-like area if we want to leave the Arena alone. The big change would be to allow teams to specifically challenge other teams. There's a similar mechanic for GvG challenge matches already, but it would need to be adapted to allow Arena teams to enter the name of an opposing team's leader, who would then accept the challenge as in GvG. Again, we're looking at a feature that's really already in the game, it just needs a bit of tweaking to adapt it to an Arena-style area.

Really, the game is so close to already having this feature, those who want it can already taste it, and that's what's so frustrating, particularly when everyone else acts like it's some huge change. Heck, some people have been clamoring for a Practice Arena. If that alone was added, you'd get exactly what duelists want, right there! Bam! You're done! Duelists can now arrange and play out their duels. Role-players can satisfy matters of honor the old-fashioned way. And as long as there are no restrictions on team size (you can go in with one or with eight people or anything in between), it can even be useful for people trying to prepare for GvG.

"People will complain that the game isn't balanced for 1v1, and ArenaNet will rebalance it and ruin team play in the process."

ArenaNet isn't that stupid. 'nuff said.

"People will complain tht the game isn't balanced for 1v1, and feel ArenaNet is ignoring them."

Now we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, aren't we? People complain about a great many things, make a great many suggestions, and ArenaNet ignores the vast majority of them. I find it highly improbable that adding dueling would make a measurable difference here. Indeed, this argument is a double-edged sword. The same people are already complaining about a lack of dueling. So since this point is true regardless of whether dueling is implemented or not, it constitutes an argument neither for nor against dueling, except for one thing: if you implement dueling, at least some people will be happy with it. That will reduce complaining and player frustration to some extent. It might be argued that others who never would have complained will engage in duels and start complaining, but any assertion about whether that number will be more or less than the number of people satisfied by the addition would be highly questionable. My own guess would be that it would be about equal to the number of people who currently vigorously complain about the Arena imbalance and demand AN fix it, which frankly isn't much. Most people take the Arena for what it is, or just leave it alone. Dueling would probably be much the same.

"You shouldn't get rank, fame, or experience for dueling."

Agreed. You should never get anything for matches in which the players choose their opponent. Neither individual nor GvG challenge matches should be ranked in any way. That's just begging for abuse.

Indeed, I believe the ideal format for allowing dueling would be to implement a "practice arena", because that no only provides a venue for duelists to challenge and play against one another, but has so many other possible uses, benefitting anyone who engages in just about any form of PvP, depending on what they choose to do in it. Heck, I suspect serious guilds will end up getting more use of it than anyone else, but as long as dueling leagues are allowed to use it, and it's not somehow gimped to prevent such use, this would make duelists very happy.

Uh... Sin, I haven't edited my previous post, except to fix some spelling and grammatical errors. This is starting to get ridiculous. Now you're talking about people getting shot over games in internet cafes. That doesn't have anything to do with one on one fighting. That has to do with people getting upset over losing, period. The idea that people are going to go ballistic enough to destroy the game over duels but not over other forms of competition in GW is just silly.

So... You don't think dueling will destroy the way Guild Wars works, but at the same time, it's this huge problem that must be kept out of the game at all costs. This makes no sense. You've spent all this time describing the horrible things that are going to happen if people are allowed to duel each other (apparently, this includes RL shootings now) but then turn around and say that you never claimed it would destroy the game.

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here, and debate the idea like adults but this has stopped being a discussion about dueling and become a raspberry war. Not once have I personally attacked you, but now you're practically hopping around, sticking your tongue out and calling me names and accusing me of changing my posts simply because I'm trying to adress your points.

I've had enough. I wish ideas like this could be discussed without people making it their personal crusade to start acting like children and ruin them when everyone doesn't agree with them.

You may now attempt to get in a few more insults before the mods spot this and close the thread. I, for my part, am done here.

one thing i have noticed in almost every strong proponent of 1v1 is that somehow everyone of them seems to feel that they will somehow be the elite winners of it
and they are modest as well from comments like i dont want to boast but i am a far superior gamer

There has been far more said than these things as reasons it shouldn't be implemented and as far as the ease of doing so, and the "explanations in rebuttal" do not invalidate them but merely re-emphasize how this is assumed in a vacuum. I doubt that any assessment other than from Arena.net is accurate at all. Also I doubt any guess whatsoever as to the balance of more or less complaints is accurate. I do know that Arena.net has X dollars to do Y things. Adding anything to the cost of Y1-infinity, is to take away from some other aspect within that range.

It is really incompetent to consider 1v1 dueling for GuildWars irrespective of arenas and other arguments due to the difference in battle intimacy, which is what dueling entails, as well as assuming all people will see and listen to the rules perfectly--most of whom if they drive have yet to keep the speed limit for one entire week. We rationalize what we think is just and will invest our ego into it entirely. No one who claims being rationale and is trying to justify the argument for dueling with all their claims of how they will handle the game unemotionally can speak for the people who aren't as strong as these proponents believe they are--especially in light of how emotional the proponents are right in this thread and the many others that have even touched on this issue.

If you think it's all just arguments against dueling from some objective cold clinical view, then there is most certainly a vacuum being assumed. There is a deep relationship that occurs and I guess you need an incident in your neighbourhood to wake you up out of your slumber.

You have no idea how cold and inconsiderate this is in light of real world results. It is totally irresponsible and no one cares, but for their "I wants."

Lunar, I am sorry but someone was killed in an internet cafe over losing in a game. The City of Garden Grove closed or is about to close all internet Cafes in their city because this is where it happened. Yea it is ridiculous that this ever happened but the incident itself isn't ridiculous. If you think losing is all this was about, it is what format they lost in: 1v1/dueling. Clearly there is an ease to become irrational irrespective of the rules of the game, dueling guilds and society. Though many may feel no responsiblity to these, it would appear that by playing this game we have that responsiblity. That Arena.net in making money off this game has that responsibility. I just don't want anything like this to happen to GuildWars. Team environments diffuse this like nothing else. Please stop striving to make a most unneccessary and irrational incidence that I agree shouldn't occur possible.

Ssshhh, don't expose their propaganda for E-Peen.

It seems to me this argument has morphed into something totally different than what it started out as. In my opinion, what it comes down to is this. If you want to do 1v1 PvP/Dueling/murdering people in Cafe's, then I think you should have the ability to in the game. If you don't want to do afore mentioned actions, then don't. Because the game is instanced, it really doesn't matter what other people do, unless they are in your group. I would imagine that arguing that the implementation will cause large scale ramifications to the entire game world which will end in chaning the name to "World of Everquest" is a little naive. You can play the game however you want and no one will bother you because you are in an instance. Thats the beauty of instanced playing areas.

the problem is in all the jerks that would be in the public non instanced areas making challenges to everybody passing by
no thanks

I can see it now.

Player A walks in town.

Player B: "I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DU DU DU DU DUEL!"

Player A: "No"

Player C: "I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DU DU DU DU DUEL!"

Rinse and repeat

yes except for the part where he keeps yelling chicken yo a lsr etc ad nauseum

When I think of Dueling, I think of having challenges
1) only in instanced areas NOT in towns and
2)in the guild hall. That takes care of that problem right there. As well as a Duel chat filter to turn off any requests (just like the emote and sell filters)

Just have a dueling arena.

People creating builds to do 1v1 will be no worse than people creating builds for 4v4 and using in 8v8 groups. Organization is what makes the group work or not. Those that are really that worried about how the team will work together are obviously going to organize some kind of team build. Otherwise you are just playing for fun and anyone thinking otherwise is simply lazy.

And thinking/worrying that ArenaNet is going to balance the game for 1v1 is lacking in logic and insulting to their own common sense.

I like the idea of 1vs1 mainly to see who is the better Warrior Primary.

"I'd own you with my sword"

"My hammer would knock your head in"

"Gimli is my hero, axe is my choice of weapon"

For the most part 1vs1 is mainly opposed in this game due to the fact that the game is completely GEARED towards strategy and team play. 1 vs 1 just truely doesn't fit in this game and it could never truely be a balanced feature in a game such as this. Though, I do feel it would be fun to pit 2 warriors against each other in a 1vs1 slug-feast.

I somewhat want a 1vs1 feature, but I feel that the situation could get out of control with complaints about balance issues. And balance issues in a team-play game CAN NOT be very accurate if it comes from people who only like to do 1vs1 battles.