Lost potential
This horse has been dead for a year, and yet we continue to beat the quivering, bloody mass that no longer even resembles a body.
I almost read that as ‘this pvp’. The rest would stil perfectly despite that little change though.
Anyhow, I bumped it mostly with the intention to have the forum newcomers educate themselves a bit.
My main was/is a necro anyway, so don’t blame me for casting signet of undeath on this gem of a thread.
RIP ‘gf left me coz of ladderboard’ Total views: 71,688 Total posts: 363
(edited by KarlaGrey.5903)
Hmmm … I am frankly puzzled, that there isn’t an official response to this. There should be.
What should we expect Anet to say? “We’ve been working on a complete re-design of PvP—by next month we’ll have healers and energy bars to promote more teamplay, and reworked literally every skill in the game to compensate?”
The OP is a great, core-design-level post that could be useful in the first three or four initial design meetings for Guild Wars 3. I didn’t see any suggestions that devs could be expected to implement post-launch or even post-alpha.
What should we expect Anet to say? “We’ve been working on a complete re-design of PvP—by next month we’ll have healers and energy bars to promote more teamplay, and reworked literally every skill in the game to compensate?”
The OP is a great, core-design-level post that could be useful in the first three or four initial design meetings for Guild Wars 3. I didn’t see any suggestions that devs could be expected to implement post-launch or even post-alpha.
Really? I do not agree, that all suggestions are impossible to deal with now. I don’t even think some of the aspects are major changes other than a change of mentality.
The core philosophy and the extreme consequence is perhaps not realistic, but there is a lot of major aspects that could be dealt with.
But every person is entitled to his opinion.
(edited by Poxxia.1547)
What should we expect Anet to say? “We’ve been working on a complete re-design of PvP—by next month we’ll have healers and energy bars to promote more teamplay, and reworked literally every skill in the game to compensate?”
The OP is a great, core-design-level post that could be useful in the first three or four initial design meetings for Guild Wars 3. I didn’t see any suggestions that devs could be expected to implement post-launch or even post-alpha.
Really? I do not agree, that all suggestions are impossible to deal with now. I don’t even think some of the aspects are major changes other than a change of mentality.
The core philosophy and the extreme consequence is perhaps not realistic, but there is a lot of major aspects that could be dealt with.
But every person is entitled to his opinion.
What specific suggestions do you have in mind that could be dealt with?
What should we expect Anet to say? “We’ve been working on a complete re-design of PvP—by next month we’ll have healers and energy bars to promote more teamplay, and reworked literally every skill in the game to compensate?”
The OP is a great, core-design-level post that could be useful in the first three or four initial design meetings for Guild Wars 3. I didn’t see any suggestions that devs could be expected to implement post-launch or even post-alpha.
Really? I do not agree, that all suggestions are impossible to deal with now. I don’t even think some of the aspects are major changes other than a change of mentality.
The core philosophy and the extreme consequence is perhaps not realistic, but there is a lot of major aspects that could be dealt with.
But every person is entitled to his opinion.What specific suggestions do you have in mind that could be dealt with?
The last part of the 4. post is imo the most interesting. Could it be dealt with? Should it be dealt with? What are the consequences of it not being implemented, and how does it reflect in the game we see now?
And the 5. post … well, considering, that new modes are supposed to come.
PS: I get the feeling, that you want me to come first when you say “I didn’t see any suggestions that devs could be expected to implement post-launch or even post-alpha.” Some of it has already been touched numerous times, so when you say something like that, it gives the impression, that you didn’t read the original post?
(edited by Poxxia.1547)
The last part of the 4. post is imo the most interesting. Could it be dealt with? Should it be dealt with? What are the consequences of it not being implemented, and how does it reflect in the game we see now?
And the 5. post … well, considering, that new modes are supposed to come.PS: I get the feeling, that you want me to come first when you say “I didn’t see any suggestions that devs could be expected to implement post-launch or even post-alpha.” Some of it has already been touched numerous times, so when you say something like that, it gives the impression, that you didn’t read the original post?
The last part of post 4 talked about giving professions more passive defense so that they could fill multiple roles at the same time.
Post 5 just said that there should be more teamwork (and other modes, which are already in the works).
I’m sorry if I’m giving a bad impression. I’m just being completely honest that I can’t figure out what Anet is practically supposed to do with this. Maybe I have reading comprehension issues.
The last part of post 4 talked about giving professions more passive defense so that they could fill multiple roles at the same time.
Post 5 just said that there should be more teamwork (and other modes, which are already in the works).
I’m sorry if I’m giving a bad impression. I’m just being completely honest that I can’t figure out what Anet is practically supposed to do with this. Maybe I have reading comprehension issues.
“If they improve the effects of passive defense while making it possible to shutdown at the same time, you wouldn’t need 8 people to achieve the same dynamics guildwars 1 had. "
I take it, that sentence is what got your attention? I focus on the second half of that sentence.
I focus on this:
“Combine this intricate game play with the already existent class combos and you have an outstanding game that focuses heavily on working together and maximizing team efficiency. Not just individual might.”
I find that to be more relevant than ever. More passive defense … my opinion on that is hardly relevant, since that is imo not relevant as an isolated feature.
The fact, that other modes are already in the works doesn’t work against the intentions of the original post, or?
About your impression: You don’t lift the evidence-burden, and yet, the first thing you ask of me is to lift it. I don’t like, when someone is pulling that sort of cheap argumentation-tricks on me; in best cases it is patronizing. Someone became famous on pulling that trick.
Saying something like your last sentence (" Maybe I have reading comprehension issues.") can be either modesty, false modesty, an attempt to defuse the situation, etc.. As you are most likely aware of, irony is hard to read on the internet and is prone for misinterpretation. So yeah … not sure, what to read into it.
We are derailing the thread, which is not my intention, so let us do pm’s instead?
(edited by Poxxia.1547)
“If they improve the effects of passive defense while making it possible to shutdown at the same time, you wouldn’t need 8 people to achieve the same dynamics guildwars 1 had. "
I take it, that sentence is what got your attention? I focus on the second half of that sentence.
I focus on this:
“Combine this intricate game play with the already existent class combos and you have an outstanding game that focuses heavily on working together and maximizing team efficiency. Not just individual might.”
I find that to be more relevant than ever. More passive defense … my opinion on that is hardly relevant, since that is imo not relevant as an isolated feature.
The fact, that other modes are already in the works doesn’t work against the intentions of the original post, or?About your impression: You don’t lift the evidence-burden, and yet, the first thing you ask of me is to lift it. I don’t like, when someone is pulling that sort of cheap argumentation-tricks on me; in best cases it is patronizing. Someone became famous on pulling that trick.
Saying something like your last sentence (" Maybe I have reading comprehension issues.") can be either modesty, false modesty, an attempt to defuse the situation, etc.. As you are most likely aware of, irony is hard to read on the internet and is prone for misinterpretation. So yeah … not sure, what to read into it.
I’m sorry that I’m not giving you much of a forum debate. I’m not looking for a forum debate at all. I merely wanted to say I felt the devs had no reason to respond to this thread, and provided a couple of reasons I felt that way. I never use sarcasm or irony on the Internet so you can take what I say at face value.
I sometimes use self-depreciating humor because I find it can ease tension if people are getting worked up; also, I honestly couldn’t figure out which points you were referring to, even after re-reading it. I was not attempting to manipulate the burden of proof in any way.
As this discussion has run its course several months ago, the thread is now closed.