Guild Wars

**Crandaeolon** · 03-18-2007, 23:34

Is it better or worse than WoW?

Depends on what you like. If you like traditional MMORPGs, WoW is by far superior. GW is an action RPG that can be played online, not a MMORPG, so whether or not you like the action itself will make or break the game for you.

**TevashSzat** · 03-19-2007, 00:13

WoW is for the more hardcore traditional MMORPG player while Guild Wars I guess would be more attractive to the hardcore PvPers due to the relatively useless PvP in WoW.

**Crandaeolon** · 03-19-2007, 03:13

Aww, I really couldn't afford the time to get into a debate. Maybe just this once...

Originally Posted by Navaros

Most half-decent teams/Guilds would not touch a new player.

I agree, though occasionally top teams seek out pro- or semipro gamers of other games (such as Counterstrike) for training, or recruit friends that they know to be good gamers, and previous GW experience is not required in such cases. (They have proven their potential in other games first.)

A new player expecting success in Guild Wars PVP

That's the "problem" right there. High-level PvP is demanding and competitive. New players should NOT expect instant success in high-level PvP. People should also realise that in team-based games you'll need more than just button-mashing ability to succeed - good communication skills, some creativity, a thick enough skin to take criticism, initiative... and being a nice guy help quite a bit.

Basically, people are complaining that a competitive game has *gasp* competition.

That is not the game's fault, quite the opposite imo. Just try to get into top 5% (roughly equivalent to GW top 100) in Counter-Strike or maybe Starcraft to see how "easy" it is... I'd wager that GW is a cakewalk when compared to those.

I also disagree with the reason given for why gimmick builds are viewed with contempt. Gimmick builds are viewed with contempt simply because the most vocal PVP players do not have enough skill to beat them, even though those builds are usually not the least bit overpowered.

Sounds like I explained myself poorly. Gimmick builds (as I understand the definition at least) are one-dimensional builds that employ a certain "trick" that the whole build relies on. This makes them easily counterable in a tournament setting by tactics, map or build choices. Sure, gimmicks can climb the ladder quickly, but the ladder is largely irrelevant anyways - now even more so than before, since ladder rank is not directly connected to participation in tournaments. And, using the currently most effective skills is not the same as playing gimmicks in my opinion.

Gimmicks may net some relatively easy victories in the short term and a good ladder ranking for a time, but in the long run, gimmicks cripple guilds. They won't learn the necessary skills to succeed in long-term play. Nerfs are not the real reason for these guilds disappearing; they have already ensured their own demise by not understanding what kind of approach is most effective in the long run.

This is why Guild Wars' constant "nerf everything that is common and effective" way of operating will never stop, and "balance" will never be achieved.

True, absolute balance will never be achieved: there is no such thing. It's humanly impossible to balance 1000+ skills over 10 classes and half a dozen PvP modes plus PvE as well. Since there will never be true balance, the game needs to gradually shift its metagame to keep things from becoming stale. Theory can help (for example, an offensive metagame is generally more fun to play than a defensive one), but only trial and error can ultimately determine the best gameplay. And this is why more frequent but less heavy-handed rebalancing is needed; gradual adjustments give people more time to get used to changes and the direction the metagame is taking, not to mention the lessened likelihood of balancing errors. I believe this would benefit PvE'ers too.

BTW, WoW has about 8,5 million (!) subscribers now.

Edit: My engrish sux.