Soooo.. GW2 is coming and you do nothing to keep the PvP-Players here?

[RoenHawk]

Why is GW2 going to kill Stun/CC Wars 2’s PvP is that it is skilled based and not mash the keys and have the gear based, and a complete cc fest. PvP in GW2 flows so much better. It is not about just mashing buttons and standing in place to get owned by players that spend a ton of time so they can get geared up or have a class that gets 3 to 5 CC’s in order to totally lock players in place. You actually have to be skilled to do well in GW2. It is far more tactical. If you just stand in place in GW2 you get owned. In Stun Wars 2 you basically are CCed 24/7. In Stun Wars it takes 1000’s of PvP matches to get geared up if you have the time. Also in Stun Wars you have to deal with bugs, like lag spikes, a broken resolve system and many others. The player that posted this is exactly right about the total lack BW has put into PvP on the PvP servers. It is an afterthought and not a priority for PvP servers. Illum was a complete bomb and instead of fixing it they just left it dead in space. BW should have had the Death Star in Star Wars blow the planet up and turn it into a space mission to rescue the survivors or something like that. 1.2 came out and they lost a ton of PvPers do to all the class nerfs, issues, and bugs. Then they came out with 1.3 and broke more classes which they had to fix by putting band aids on them. All MMO’s I have played have issues but BW wins the Gold medal for the amount of bugs. They also ignore major issues like the broken resolve bar that has been talked in the PvP forums about since it was introduced. GW2 will have its issues but from a PvP stand point it is so much more rewarding when you win a good fight. GW2 offers so many more PvP options than the 4 War Zones in Star Wars. Will wait and see how many Peeps they lose to GW2 I know 76 people in the guild I belong to of over 120 are going to GW2 so in about 3 weeks will see the impact this will have on Stun Wars 2.

[Skolops]

No he isn't given player A would have a disadvantage in terms of time, player B has means player A does not, namely time. The fact is both players have the opportunity to get the same advantage in game via different means. You want to get metaphysical you have to take those different considerations into account.

 

Your trying to make a metaphysical argument about competition but it doesn't stack up when there are worse inequities in every sport around the world.

 

I am not entirely certain you have any idea what the word metaphysical means.

 

The issue with time versus money, ultimately, is that money is something which is entirely unrelated to the game, while time is not. Whether I have a lot of time or a little compared to someone else, we are both playing by the same rules: I do things X, Y, and Z in game and I am able to earn A, B, and C rewards.

 

Now on the surface, it's understandable that one might say, "well people paying money are playing by the same rules, too." After all, the rule is, "Spend $X to earn Y reward, right?"

 

The difference is that where time is concerned, that time is being invested in the same way to earn the same rewards. Whether its picking up 100 bear skins or killing 50 rats or delivering a package to the mystic in the cave, the guy with no time has to do the same thing as the guy with all the time in the world: same rules.

 

On the other hand, where money is concerned, we're not actually playing by the same rules, in a lot of different ways. I might make $30 an hour and someone else makes $10, so I have to do considerably less than he to get the same reward. I may be able to pay all of my bills with that $30 an hour and then some, whereas he may not have any disposable income to spend on gems. We could list other differences. The point is that when money comes into the picture, some people have an advantage over others which is insurmountable and dependent on real life factors rather than those in game.

[Skolops]

Thats actually contradicted by the experience of many different games.

 

You think so? I don't. In the first place, psychologists have researched this and their findings support my claim, so that in and of itself is all I really ought to have to say.

 

That said, I can give some examples from personal experience, from old school to modern.

 

- I used to play Super Mario Brothers all the time. The day I finally beat it, I really stopped playing it.

 

- I used to play my Shadow all the time, but the closer I got her to being fully geared, the more I preferred to play my toons who were ungeared or to make new characters

 

- I played StarCraft II ALL the time, until I hit the league I had seen as my skill cap. After that point, I wasn't really motivated to play any more.

 

- I used to like playing sports games - Madden, NHL, etc. - but I could never play them for more than a few weeks after their release each year. There was simply nothing to keep me interested. The one exception? The year I joined a league and had a championship to chase after.

[Skolops]

Why is GW2 going to kill Stun/CC Wars 2’s PvP is that it is skilled based and not mash the keys and have the gear based, and a complete cc fest. PvP in GW2 flows so much better. It is not about just mashing buttons and standing in place to get owned by players that spend a ton of time so they can get geared up or have a class that gets 3 to 5 CC’s in order to totally lock players in place. You actually have to be skilled to do well in GW2. It is far more tactical. If you just stand in place in GW2 you get owned.

 

Only bad players in TOR stand in place. If you think standing in place is even close to a viable strategy in TOR, I must say you have a lot to learn about TOR PvP.

 

In Stun Wars 2 you basically are CCed 24/7.

 

This is simply not accurate, unless to are on a bad team. When I play ranked warzones with a good team and against a good team, I am not CCed constantly, because there are 7 other good players out there for the other team to need to worry about.

 

When I play with a bad team in a regular warzone, on the other hand, I am usually the only or the last one to be in the right place, and so I have to eat the CCs of 5 people - which is completely reasonable as far as I am concerned.

 

 

They also ignore major issues like the broken resolve bar that has been talked in the PvP forums about since it was introduced. GW2 will have its issues but from a PvP stand point it is so much more rewarding when you win a good fight. GW2 offers so many more PvP options than the 4 War Zones in Star Wars. Will wait and see how many Peeps they lose to GW2 I know 76 people in the guild I belong to of over 120 are going to GW2 so in about 3 weeks will see the impact this will have on Stun Wars 2.

 

Ahhh.. I mean no offense in saying this, but if you are in one of those 120 member guilds then I can understand why you may feel the way you do about PvP in TOR, as you have very likely rarely played with good players. The good PvP guilds have small numbers of members - 20 to 30 tops, apart from people's alts. The zerg recruiting in general chat guilds, on the other hand, have a thousand members but most of them are either terrible or simply average at best.

 

Also, resolve works fine if you understand how it works.

[Scritchy]

I also maintain that many, many, many people who are going to start playing GW2 because they like the idea of the "no grind" system will find themselves simply growing bored of it very, very quickly, because whether they realize it or not it is a scientific fact of human nature, one which has been demonstrated repeatedly, that this kind of "grind" keeps people interested in something.

Yeah, and there is nothing that will keep competitive PVPers playing since they won't be able to grind for gear to get better...

 

http://www.guildwars2guru.com/news/691-guru-pvp-interview-with-arenanet-and-our-pvp-section-is-growing/

[Fyda]

Yeah, and there is nothing that will keep competitive PVPers playing since they won't be able to grind for gear to get better...

 

http://www.guildwars2guru.com/news/691-guru-pvp-interview-with-arenanet-and-our-pvp-section-is-growing/

 

Yep, also fun PvP-games, like TF2, League of Legends, Dota, get played for hours and hours. Why? Those game have no stupid grind and they still get played. You wanna know why? Because they are fun, heavily competitive, heavily skillbased (and some of them have an Elo-System). Progressive PvP is dead, you heard it here.

[Scritchy]

Progressive PvP is dead, you heard it here.

Progressive PVP should have been aborted before birth.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Scritchy

[Skolops]

Yep, also fun PvP-games, like TF2, League of Legends, Dota, get played for hours and hours. Why? Those game have no stupid grind and they still get played. You wanna know why? Because they are fun, heavily competitive, heavily skillbased (and some of them have an Elo-System). Progressive PvP is dead, you heard it here.

 

Those games are popular because they are free. Now look, some people do genuinely enjoy them apart from that - I think they're terribly boring and stupid - but if they cost money the numbers wouldn't be remotely so high.

 

The other thing is, I wouldn't call them PvP in the same way that TOR or WoW or GW2 has PvP (well, TF2 kindof is). They're multi-player games, but MMO PvP is a whole other animal. That's part of why I'm so skeptical of GW2 - it really separates the MMO from the PvP, and I'm not sure I like that or how other MMO fans will like it.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Skolops

[Scritchy]

Those games are popular because they are free. Now look, some people do genuinely enjoy them apart from that - I think they're terribly boring and stupid - but if they cost money the numbers wouldn't be remotely so high.

 

The other thing is, I wouldn't call them PvP in the same way that TOR or WoW or GW2 has PvP (well, TF2 kindof is). They're multi-player games, but MMO PvP is a whole other animal. That's part of why I'm so skeptical of GW2 - it really separates the MMO from the PvP, and I'm not sure I like that or how other MMO fans will like it.

They liked it previously when it was done in GW1.

 

Edit: And Team Fortress 2 was very popular when it was still buy to play.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Scritchy

[Skolops]

They liked it previously when it was done in GW1.

 

Well that's the thing... I never played GW1, but what I read and watch tells me - and my gamer friend who is into all of this stuff confirms - that it really wasn't an MMO or considered one for most of its tenure (though some more MMO-like elements were added over time) but was seen in a vein a lot more similar to how LoL and the like are today. GW2, though, is being billed and taken as a full MMO. We'll have to see what happens.

[Scritchy]

Well that's the thing... I never played GW1, but what I read and watch tells me - and my gamer friend who is into all of this stuff confirms - that it really wasn't an MMO or considered one for most of its tenure (though some more MMO-like elements were added over time) but was seen in a vein a lot more similar to how LoL and the like are today. GW2, though, is being billed and taken as a full MMO. We'll have to see what happens.

The reason people say it wasn't an MMO is because everything outside the towns were instanced. It has nothing to do with the PVP.

[Fyda]

Those games are popular because they are free. Now look, some people do genuinely enjoy them apart from that - I think they're terribly boring and stupid - but if they cost money the numbers wouldn't be remotely so high.

 

The other thing is, I wouldn't call them PvP in the same way that TOR or WoW or GW2 has PvP (well, TF2 kindof is). They're multi-player games, but MMO PvP is a whole other animal. That's part of why I'm so skeptical of GW2 - it really separates the MMO from the PvP, and I'm not sure I like that or how other MMO fans will like it.

 

I'm Sorry? Warzones in SWTor are exactly the same as League of Legends or TF2. Warzones in SWTor have nothing to do with the world or the MMORPG. It's your character but it has no connection to the rest of the game: No consequences in the game world, no possibility to "bump" into others, no possibility to gank or annoy people. Playing Warzones feels exactly like playing League of Legends, with the difference that you have a Fleet waiting for you after you finished it and you have a bad gear progression. Warzones have NOTHING to do with the game.

 

EDIT: In GW2 you also have a story, you also make connections to your character. With the difference that the PvP is fair (Structured at least, WvWvW has a bolster but not upgraded abilities etc). Seriously, in SWTor a lvl 45 Marauder can fight against a lvl 11 Gunslinger. A Warhero-powertech can play against recruit-sage. Especially the first point with the level-difference is broken, no Idea how a gamedesigner can let new players, who try their first warzone, play against people who are 30 levels above them. Didn't they see how flawed it is? On the other had they did let players with Battlemaster play against lvl 1-49 for a long time, so I guess they have no Idea.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Fyda

[Skolops]

The reason people say it wasn't an MMO is because everything outside the towns were instanced. It has nothing to do with the PVP.

 

That's what I mean. I like TOR because the toon as I play him/her in PvP is deeply connected to the toon as I play him/her in the open world and PvE. I am looking forward to GW2, but one of the top concerns I have is that the "two" will feel too disconnected for me.

 

Also, have you played the GW2 beta? (That's a genuine question, not meant as a "gotcha!" question). One of the primary negatives from the reviews I have read is that it is very, very instanced - moreso than TOR is. I'm curious what someone who has played the beta thinks about this.

[fungihoujo]

I write some of the longest posts you'll find on any forum I am on. However, they have substance, they seek to respond to things that my interlocutors have said, and not what they have not, they seek to take into account everything that has been said and strive to avoid missing anything, and they always seek to further the discussion by clarifying or going more deeply into some given point.

 

So far, much of what you have written accuses me of holding to positions that I have explicitly rejected,responds to my arguments by repeating the very same things which my more recent posts have already been written to address without responding to those more recent posts, and even simply takes 3 or 4 paragraphs to make ad hominem arguments without addressing the point at hand.

 

So yes, I believe it a better use of my time not to respond. Those arguments of yours which are either new or relevant will be addressed.

 

You mean- you have wishy washy arguments that come down to nothing more than 'my opinion' and 'what I like', you refuse to discuss things and instead say 'I have already proven myself right' despite having done no such thing, as if you can simply just say 'I won the argument so ha!' once you run out of things to say.

 

And ad hominem? Ooo, ouch, harsh coming from someone who said the opinions of 80% of players are invalid when they ask for change because they're simply all bads.

 

You have full right to post on the forum as much as you want- but as long as you continue to ignore any argument that doesn't support your agenda I will happily point it out, so that others know entering into a discussion with you is pointless because in your mind you are always right and do not need any more proof than 'because I said so'.

 

In all fairness- BW has used the same logic to defend their balancing changes- so you are on the same page as your beloved company.

[Katsuragisama]

You think so? I don't. In the first place, psychologists have researched this and their findings support my claim, so that in and of itself is all I really ought to have to say.

 

That said, I can give some examples from personal experience, from old school to modern.

 

- I used to play Super Mario Brothers all the time. The day I finally beat it, I really stopped playing it.

 

I think you just have a different mentality than most. It's not to say its wrong, just that not everyone agrees. I remember playing Super Mario Bros. as well. The day I beat it, I kept beating it. I wanted to see if I could do it better. I wanted to see if I could perfect the level, knowing where everything was, where it would appear on screen. About what timing to jump off one of those pipe tubes and land on a goomba (or whatever they're called) and land perfectly on one, bounce off, and perfectly land on the second one.

 

Why? It was a challenge I created for myself. And most importantly, it was fun. Not every gamer needs a shiny to chase after/grind for because it makes them stronger. Perhaps they just find it fun, and like the competition.

 

Players dont have to spend hours upon hours grinding a +5 Belt for Ryu to compete at EVO. Or a sword for Dante in Marvel vs Capcom 3. Or make Storms attacks more powerful in MvC2. Yet, every year EVO has a huge turn out. Not only in competitors but spectators as well. I think that's the mentality that GW2 will bring for PvP in MMO's.

[Scritchy]

That's what I mean. I like TOR because the toon as I play him/her in PvP is deeply connected to the toon as I play him/her in the open world and PvE. I am looking forward to GW2, but one of the top concerns I have is that the "two" will feel too disconnected for me.

 

Also, have you played the GW2 beta? (That's a genuine question, not meant as a "gotcha!" question). One of the primary negatives from the reviews I have read is that it is very, very instanced - moreso than TOR is. I'm curious what someone who has played the beta thinks about this.

You are as connected to your character in PVP as you want to be. http://www.arena.net/blog/the-emotional-connection

 

Yes, I played in every Beta weekend. The only instances are the class quests, everything else is in the open (except dungeons obviously). I have no clue how people can say it was very, very, instanced - especially claiming it is more instanced than TOR (where even simple quests are instanced). And it is great, they completely got away with all the annoying stuff with a lot of people in the same area so you aren't wishing it is instanced.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Scritchy

[Skolops]

I'm Sorry? Warzones in SWTor are exactly the same as League of Legends or TF2. Warzones in SWTor have nothing to do with the world or the MMORPG. It's your character but it has no connection to the rest of the game: No consequences in the game world, no possibility to "bump" into others, no possibility to gank or annoy people. Playing Warzones feels exactly like playing League of Legends, with the difference that you have a Fleet waiting for you after you finished it and you have a bad gear progression. Warzones have NOTHING to do with the game.

 

They do, though, in a lot of ways. Some of them moreso than others, and some of them may even seem more silly than others, but I'll list as many as I can think of.

 

1) The toon I spent hours and hours leveling, going through the personal story, etc. is the same one who is competing in the warzones.

 

2) The toon in warzones comes out wearing the same clothes he has inside. Seems small, but make me feel a connection.

 

3) The datacrons I worked for in the open world buff my character in the warzone

 

4) The crew skills I worked on in the open world cna be used to my benefit in the warzones

 

5) The PvP community is such that we recognize one another in the WZs, on the fleet, and in the open world and a sense of community is created.

 

Etc.

 

Those things aren't really present in the games listed, and they are where that MMO side of things really make a difference.

[Skolops]

You mean- you have wishy washy arguments that come down to nothing more than 'my opinion' and 'what I like', you refuse to discuss things and instead say 'I have already proven myself right' despite having done no such thing, as if you can simply just say 'I won the argument so ha!' once you run out of things to say.

 

And ad hominem? Ooo, ouch, harsh coming from someone who said the opinions of 80% of players are invalid when they ask for change because they're simply all bads.

 

This is another example of misunderstanding or misrepresenting me. I didn't say they're invalid because they're bad. I said that 80% of the people complaining about the PvP in the game demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of class and game mechanics in their posts, and that on that basis I judge their opinions to be of less value.

 

For example, when someone is complaining that Sentinels are overpowered because they can Force Push and Force Stasis people until they're dead without the opponent having a chance to respond, I don't take that person's opinions about balance seriously because he has shown he doesn't even know the difference between a Guardian and a Sentinel ability.

[Skolops]

You are as connected to your character in PVP as you want to be. http://www.arena.net/blog/the-emotional-connection

 

Yes, I played in every Beta weekend. The only instances are the class quests, everything else is in the open (except dungeons obviously). I have no clue how people can say it was very, very, instanced - especially claiming it is more instanced than TOR (where even simple quests are instanced). And it is great, they completely got away with all the annoying stuff with a lot of people in the same area so you aren't wishing it is instanced.

 

Thanks for the link I'll give it a read.

[Fyda]

They do, though, in a lot of ways. Some of them moreso than others, and some of them may even seem more silly than others, but I'll list as many as I can think of.

 

1) The toon I spent hours and hours leveling, going through the personal story, etc. is the same one who is competing in the warzones.

 

2) The toon in warzones comes out wearing the same clothes he has inside. Seems small, but make me feel a connection.

 

3) The datacrons I worked for in the open world buff my character in the warzone

 

4) The crew skills I worked on in the open world cna be used to my benefit in the warzones

 

5) The PvP community is such that we recognize one another in the WZs, on the fleet, and in the open world and a sense of community is created.

 

Etc.

 

Those things aren't really present in the games listed, and they are where that MMO side of things really make a difference.

 

Sounds good but it's not nearly enough to make up for the disconnection between the world and the warzones for me. Warzones are still only a League of Legends-match for me with a bad gear and level-progression. What would I give for structured PvP in SWTor, at least from lvl 10-49... So many characters to try and a possibility to level only trough PvP without having constant disadvantage against people with a higher level..

 

EDIT: Holy hell, 55 pages guys.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Fyda

[fungihoujo]

You are as connected to your character in PVP as you want to be. http://www.arena.net/blog/the-emotional-connection

 

Yes, I played in every Beta weekend. The only instances are the class quests, everything else is in the open (except dungeons obviously). I have no clue how people can say it was very, very, instanced - especially claiming it is more instanced than TOR (where even simple quests are instanced). And it is great, they completely got away with all the annoying stuff with a lot of people in the same area so you aren't wishing it is instanced.

 

There's barriers in pve zones- not unlike between a world and your ship- and pve zones are generally smaller than an entire SWTOR world (though you also have instant travel so you don't have to go through 5 instances just to get to a place you want to play). If we're talking actual individual instances- those are far less common than SWTOR as few quests use them.

 

Fact is, instancing like TOR has wouldn't work for GW2- since a large part of the game is dynamic events (rifts or PQs for those who played Rift or WAR), you need a community for that to work- and in world pvp, it is much the same with a large reliance on the community.

 

GW2 has a much larger focusing on community play than GW1 (which had almost none) while still keeping the competitive, small, controlled battlezone format for competitive play that made GW1 famous.

 

Is pve and world pvp going to be competitive? Probably not quite as much as small group pvp, but when you have events that are supposed to involve your entire server it's hard to have that many competitive players playing at all times anyway.

 

Point is there will be something for everyone- and yes, even for the grinders as the time sink to get cosmetic items is quite large.

 

There is only one person who is being completely left out- the person who needs a stat bonus in pvp who has a large amount of time to grind out gear that gives him an advantage.

[Skolops]

You are as connected to your character in PVP as you want to be. http://www.arena.net/blog/the-emotional-connection

 

Yes, I played in every Beta weekend. The only instances are the class quests, everything else is in the open (except dungeons obviously). I have no clue how people can say it was very, very, instanced - especially claiming it is more instanced than TOR (where even simple quests are instanced). And it is great, they completely got away with all the annoying stuff with a lot of people in the same area so you aren't wishing it is instanced.

 

Ehh, having read it, it really doesn't address my concerns at all. It talks almost 90% about character creation and personal story, with a few very vague references about the need to keep that investment up as time goes on.

 

My real concern is over the fact that, when you enter the PvP area, you effectively have your character changed into someone else.

[Scritchy]

There's barriers in pve zones- not unlike between a world and your ship- and pve zones are generally smaller than an entire SWTOR world (though you also have instant travel so you don't have to go through 5 instances just to get to a place you want to play). If we're talking actual individual instances- those are far less common than SWTOR as few quests use them.

When people complain about heavily instanced games, they mean nobody in the zone except for your party. Certain times those are acceptable (such as a dungeon crawl or raid - even though fighting through other groups to get to the bottom of a dungeon for the contested boss at the bottom was fun), but heavily instanced games tend to lose their sense of community quicker. In this case, people are trying to say that there are more zones where nobody but your party is allowed than in TOR, which is simply not the case.

[fungihoujo]

This is another example of misunderstanding or misrepresenting me. I didn't say they're invalid because they're bad. I said that 80% of the people complaining about the PvP in the game demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of class and game mechanics in their posts, and that on that basis I judge their opinions to be of less value.

 

For example, when someone is complaining that Sentinels are overpowered because they can Force Push and Force Stasis people until they're dead without the opponent having a chance to respond, I don't take that person's opinions about balance seriously because he has shown he doesn't even know the difference between a Guardian and a Sentinel ability.

 

Yet why are those people's opinions important? For the game to be in balance now- it would mean that before you believed that sorcs were very overpowered- and back then there were arguments that sorcs were op because of Force Lightning's stun (which didn't exist), stealth (which they don't have), etc... The class received a heavy nerf- which can't be disputed if you look at the facts- so anyone believing them balanced now believed them unbalanced before yet where were the logical arguments defending that?

 

Two weeks back there was a study of 200 RWZ matches- sorcs did less damage, were taken five times less often than mara, died an average of 10 times per match while mara averaged at 5- stats. Side by side defensive CD comparisons, gap closer/gap keeper, damage output, interrupt vs avoiding interrupt capability- all of them through abilities and play are proven to greatly favour the marauder.

 

So why does the opinions of some idiots who think sorcs have stealth and marauders have force push matter? There's plenty of people who know, or even play both sorcs and mara at max level and have shown through proof the differences, or spoken through experience on the differences.

 

That doesn't even get into the huge drop in sorc, merc and dps op subs following 1.2- when 25% of your playerbase leaves in a month following a patch BW should have done something- yet there is still no response to that months later.

[fungihoujo]

Ehh, having read it, it really doesn't address my concerns at all. It talks almost 90% about character creation and personal story, with a few very vague references about the need to keep that investment up as time goes on.

 

My real concern is over the fact that, when you enter the PvP area, you effectively have your character changed into someone else.

 

Which is different how from SWTOR? In pvp you wear a different set of gear, and you have a different spec- now, SWTOR is very limited, in that 90% of players have the same cookie cutter builds because there's really no room to experiment, and BW had a campaign to systematically ruin every hybrid that popped up early on- in GW2, you have different stats, different gear, and would likely pick a different spec than in pve- you essentially get a bolster which is not unlike SWTOR- except it bolsters you to max level, keeps everyone together and there's no twinking out weapons at level 49 for big advantages, or huge gear difference between recruit and WH.