User talk:Xeeron/suggestions/Make PvP reward-only items available in PvE

Pointless suggestion is pointless. Whine more please :< -Auron 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Silence! --Jette 07:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Argh, two edit conflicts! Shut up so I can post my friggin' comment.) I agree totally with this idea, although I should point out that two of the three initial examples you gave are available in PvE. Indeed, quite a few supposedly PvP-only rewards appear to be available somewhere in PvE, even if only as a single, rare green. --Mme. Donelle 07:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And if those greens didn't have positively terrible stats, I would be okay with that. Unfortunately, they do. File:Sad.jpg --Jette 07:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dire pets, r7 shields, etc - those need to be added to the PvP equipment menu or removed from PvE. Actual equipment imbalance is a much bigger concern than pvers bitching and moaning about not having pretty weapons. Whining about this is just dumb and a waste of everyone's time. -Auron 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the concerns of people who hardcore PvP are more valid than the concerns of completist PvEers? If you have a problem with equipment balance, why not make your own suggestion to ANet instead of whinging pointlessly about people who have the gall to play the game for different reasons than you? --Mme. Donelle 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the people who "balance" (lol) the game are useless. We're more likely to get somebody to implement permanent fireworks in all the cities than we are to get Wail of Doom fixed. --Jette 07:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Auron's point is everything can't be fair for both PvEers and PvPers. He's not whining about unbalance, whereas you are taking this too personally, and in your hubris, unable to see that PvPers don't things that PvEers have, like R7 shields. PvP is NOT PvE, and should remain as such.Pika Fan 07:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because, Donelle, the game relies on balance. PvE does, too - if you were complaining about PvE balance I would be at least a little sympathetic. But you aren't. Since this is purely a cosmetic change, you need to realize how much this is a waste of everyone's time when there are actual balance concerns between PvE and PvP items. Once the items are properly balanced for competitive play, adding different skins can be done at leisure, since they don't directly interfere with the game.

Also, what Pika said. You need to take yourself less seriously. This isn't about PvP being prioritized over PvE, it's about balance being prioritized over cosmetics. -Auron 07:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And, again, the balancers are blind, deaf, and dumb. Appealing to them is like bashing your head against a brick wall. Perhaps those in charge of cosmetics might actually be helpful. --Jette 07:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Many people go for looks rather than functionality.Pika Fan 07:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion has nothing to do with PvP but a likely oversight in some of the weapon skins (such as the Wyvern Blade) which initially existed but were not added to PvE loot tables. Tournament rewards came along and suddenly these skins were rediscovered. The PvP only skins were intended for PvE anyway, they just fell by the wayside. It's not hurting anyone by adding these skins to the loot tables and likely not a lot of work either. BTW PvP toons can easily use dye and weapons just like a PvE toon. I don't see what all the bitching is about. 58.106.44.4 07:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? PvP characters can have black armor? -Auron 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you buy a black dye, I think they can. --Jette 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh you mean if you have PvE money you can buy PvE dyes? How does that relate to PvP chars at all? PvP characters can't make armor black, nor can they unlock black dyes with RP. That's just another skin imbalance that PvErs have over PvPers. However, that still isn't my point - who cares about shit like cosmetics when the game is broken? -Auron 08:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not taking this personally (but thanks for making assumptions); I just don't see why he feels he needs to be a git in the way he words his comments. "Waste of time", "dumb", "pointess suggestion", etc... the point Auron is trying to make is that ANet's time may be better spent on balancing PvP instead of pandering to the trivial desires of PvEers. A valid point, but then it's a PvP-focused point. From a PvEer's perspective, r7 shields and dire pets are relatively minor issues (let's be honest here, an extra 8 armour is only unbalanced in high-end PvP), whereas rare skins are important -- they would have a considerable effect on the economy as well as providing a new goal for the content-parched elite. High-end stuff, sure, but relevant to PvEers. So calling this suggestion "dumb" just because it's PvE-focused is, well, dumb. --Mme. Donelle 07:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Auron is a git, that's why he feels the need to act like it. To be honest Auron, PvPers should have access to q7 shields and dire pets. Black armour I am less concerned about. Misery 08:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said "those need to be added to the PvP equipment menu or removed from PvE." I'm interested in balance, not boning PvErs that have spent loads of money on rare shields. -Auron 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still an irrelevant point. New skins in PvE doesn't effect either side in terms of balance -- it's just a nice treat for PvEers -- so your balance argument is useless here. --Mme. Donelle 08:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't even begun to respond to you, but based on how much you misconstrued my comment to Misery and how little you apparently understand what we're talking about here, I can tell this is going to be fun. -Auron 08:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry. By this point I'm just trying to piss you off. Isn't the internets fun when you act like an asshole? :) --Mme. Donelle 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if you weren't taking this personally, what is, then? And you seem to have skipped the whole point altogether, and that is there are bound to be things that PvP characters can't have, and PvE characters can't have. If you want skins that PvP-focused characters only have, play PvP, if you want R7 shields, play PvE. Not complain about things like skins and skipping the bigger picture altogether. Also, allow me to give you a taste of your own medicine: For PvPers, rare skins are relatively minor issues (let's be honest here, rare skins only unbalance the economy in high-end PvE), whereas r7 shields and dire pets are important, they would allow PvPers have optimal equipment without having to create a PvE character from scratch. So, calling this suggestion not "dumb" just because you advocate people who want to satisfy their need to doll up their characters is, well, dumb.Pika Fan 08:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lo, I am wounded. Good job it's just me taking this seriously and not you, eh? --Mme. Donelle 08:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, common sense is clearly lacking in our current society, I mean, it SHOULD be obvious I wouldn't be posting here if I didn't give two hoots about it.Pika Fan 08:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now you've just lost me. Wherefore you belittle me for taking things seriously, when taking it seriously is clearly a must in this conversation? --Mme. Donelle 08:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, taking things seriously is fundamentally different from taking things personally. Unless, of course, I could be unaware of the change of meanings of words in the english language.Pika Fan 08:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking things personally stems from taking things seriously: if you don't take it seriously, there's no reason to be wounded by anyone's comments. Come, now. Is that the best you've got? --Mme. Donelle 08:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have confused taking things seriously and taking things personally. Taking things personally entails being serious, but being serious does not necessarily entail taking things personally, just like a chicken is a bird but a bird may not necessarily be a chicken. It's like saying professionals who take work seriously take work personally. You really need to brush up on your english, tbh.Pika Fan 08:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And apparently one must be precise at all times when speaking english? Whatever happened to insinuation and subtlety? Don't tell me you don't have the intelligence to tell I was implying you're taking it personally? Which you clearly are. --Mme. Donelle 08:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because apparently, you are using insinuation and subtlety as excuses to divert the fact that you, clearly lack the knowledge to tell the difference between taking things seriously and taking things personally, as shown above where you tried oh-so-hard to prove they are referring to the same thing. It's the same as passing off blatant ignorance as sarcasm. You know, avoid trying to walk when you can't even stand, let alone fly.Pika Fan 08:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling genuine sarcasm (poorly excecuted, perhaps, but perfectly genuine) ignorance for the sake of winning a flame war is much the same as belittling someone by claiming they're taking something personally and then nit-picking over a slip of the tongue: makes you look like a reeeeal asshole. It was pretty clear from the context what I meant, and hopefully obvious from the arrogance that I was trolling. Maybe not in the latter case? Whatever. Unfortunately, I'm just not as naturally talented as being an asshole as you, so I give up. You've successfully defeated someone with crushingly low self-esteem in a flame-war on the internet: congratulations. --Mme. Donelle 10:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I am really, VERY sorry for calling an egg an egg. I should have said you were very UNDERSTANDING, instead of hurting your feelings with the truth. And if you actually referred to what you defended yourself with when I sounded you out for the serious/personal issue, you know very well it is NOT a slip of the tongue; it is clearly a lack of understanding and knowledge, which made me wonder whether you actually knew and understood the points raised so far. Reinforced with the fact that your vocabulary is so pitiful, I wanted to give you a break, until you decided saving as much face as possible from your ignorant posts so far was the way to go. P.S I never knew that genuinely not being able to tell the difference between two simple words was sarcasm. I am certainly enlightened today.Pika Fan 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

trolls trolling trolls, etc. --Jette 08:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dumb people acting dumb isn't trolling. They still piss people off, but part of being a troll is trying to troll - dumb people are generally trying to make a point and they just let massive incompetence do the pissing everyone off part. Not the same thing :/ -Auron 08:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. I was trolling. --Jette 08:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I know. So am I. Not sure everyone in this thread is, though :p -Auron 08:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[yawn] --Mme. Donelle 08:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trolling. I actually went and made the non-retarded version of this suggestion. Misery 08:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh...Couldn't we just have both? Give PvP players access to all kinds of equipment (and pets, whatever) AND make all skins available in both PvE and PvP? Erasculio 12:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we playing the same game? Just having both requires ANet caring and spending time on gw1. They don't even have enough time to fix the shit that's been broken for 3 years and is ridiculously easy to fix (snowball arena imbalance with avalanche/yellow snow), so them fixing stuff that needs fixing and adding random stuff that doesn't really matter is highly unlikely. -Auron 12:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think this entire section (Guild Wars suggestions) is useless and should be deleted because Arena Net won't implement anything from here anytime soon. But if we're discussing ideas here, and thus pretending that they have some relevance at all, wouldn't the better idea be to have both fixes, instead of just having one or the other? Erasculio 13:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have both now. CONGRATULATIONS WE WIN! I almost considered deleting this whole section, then I realised it's purpose. If it exists Arenanet can occasionally pretend they care so some people will rage less. Misery 13:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You just realised that the suggestions section is more or less for 1)people who think suggesting useless things will work out nicely for them when more practical stuff aren't fixed or implemented 2)people who troll those mentioned earlier?Pika Fan 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, they implement utterly worthless bullshit all the time. --Jette 03:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh. How else to blow that little spark of hope?Pika Fan 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

<reset indent> You all realise that this entire conversation was off topic? Whether PvP characters can get a FDS or not was irrelevant, let alone PvP imbalance. If Auron wants to complain about PvP imbalance he should start that topic on a different suggestion page or take it up with one of the A-Net staff who deals with that. The reality is, the staff that implemented the concise skill descriptions, decide and implement adding new skins for PvE and whatever else was bitched about are different from the guys who do skill balance. The person who did concise skill descriptions would very likely have been someone with qualifications similair to Gaile Gray, do you really want Gaile to balance skills in PvP? Look outside your little circle, realise GW doesn't revolve around PvP - there are a lot more people who play PvE, and realise that the staff A-Net employs have qualifications to work in different areas from PvP but not necessarily PvP. If this suggestion were implemented or not, it would neither hinder nor benefit any chance of someone working on PvP balance seeing as the people who would do either are not the same. The coding required to change a few numbers around on a skill would likely not take much time at all, the thought behind and balance testing would - these jobs are not ones everyone should be doing. 122.111.93.80 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had actually read instead of being an idiot like you are atm, you would realize that if anet had so much time to do pointless stuff such as this they should fix broken and unbalanced stuff. This isn't so much of PvE vs PvP as much than it is about practicality vs cosmetics. No point looking good when the whole game is centered around a few boring broken skills and you swing your so-called rare skins to activate said broken skills.Pika Fan 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NPA. If you read what I wrote, the people who have the time are not the ones who balance skills. Not every A-Net employee is a skill balancer. 122.111.93.80 05:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, and my reply to you is, if they have so much time to roll out pointless eye candy, they can take the time to learn how to balance the game. What you have mentioned only tells me that anet has bad manpower management; things like balance that need more people aren't getting the manpower, people working on anything but balancing are shaking their legs. I don't think having more people to actually listen to good players for their feedback and refer it to the programmers require a lot of brain power. And fyi, if you don't like me breaking NPA, don't be an idiot and exercise common sense when posting.Pika Fan 06:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)