Curse

Bryant Again · Dec 23, 2008, 01:30 PM // 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Uh...you need to be convinced that skill>time isn't pointless?

I really don't get what you're trying to say...but if that is what you are saying then lol.

And yes of course there was things that required time to get in the beginning, but those were more throw people a bone activities as opposed to being the main point of the game and the entire endgame. Not to mention the game being harder back then (despite all these new "elite" areas), but thats beside the point. The point is that the game changed from mostly skill>time to mostly time>skill and thats all that matters.

In other words yes, my skill no longer matters. I can indeed play through the game and beat and kill everything by simply grinding out my titles and stats without ever having to put together a coherent build. Awesome, okay.

The reason I keep comparing Guild Wars to those games is because they all have the same system Guild Wars has, in one way or the other, and are fine. For Oblivion and Mass Effect it's to show that you can have high and hard to reach levels and still have a meaningful and solid game.

I keep bringing up the achievements for the 360, PS3 and Steam because they are the exact same thing Guild Wars has: large "grinds" that give 0 benefit (TF2 has a bit of a different situation) and that only serve to exist as trophies. Even Nintendo has done this with their games, noteably in Super Smash Bros with all of the collectable trophies and they certainly haven't gotten any shit from it.

I keep bringing all of these things up because all of those games are not in any form of danger. The developers create all this optional "grind" yet aren't shunned for it and their games are held in great regard. They're able to add these systems into their games with no backlash.

Which begs the question: if so many other successful games can have this, why can't Guild Wars? How is it considered a "problem" to have things like this in the game? What makes Guild Wars so different?

And that's just the thing: there isn't any reason for ANet to have this besides to not. It's an optional route of gameplay exactly like what hundreds of thousands of other games have done, and the only thing you'll miss out on is saying "I did such-and-such". That's why I keep bringing up "all dem gamez", because they have the exact same thing.

This could go back to your original claim that it went "against the premise" of Guild Wars, but seeing how there's little point to being against something so wildly insignificant I would question such a stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

If everyone (including Anet) had legitimate healthy reasons for raising the cap, I wouldn't be in this thread. Instead we have terrible reasons and no reason from Anet.

There's nothing wrong with a 20 cap. There's nothing wrong with a 40 cap. There's nothing wrong with an infinity cap. It's all in how the game is built.

There could be numerous reasons for the transition. It's true that you shouldn't fix what's not broken, but is that what's necessarily at the discussion? ANet might just want a change of scenery, maybe they really do want to make a wildly different game. Right nowm though, the problem lies more in the players immediately correlating high levels in MMO's as a step down a bad road.

Crispie · Dec 23, 2008, 02:45 PM // 14:45

I play this game as a casual gamer. If I have to grind like every other mmorpg out there to get to the max level, I will be beyond pissed. It took me a month of dedication (obsessive daily playing) to just reach level 44 on World of Warcraft back in High School when I had all the free time in the world, but I'm in college now and have no time for that.

Neo Atomisk · Dec 23, 2008, 03:03 PM // 15:03

Personally, I want (and hope) that the level cap thing works out something like what we currently have.
It'd be nice if people who grinded their balls off got a reward (like the eotn consumables) for their hard work, but nothing that was permanant or gave their character any advantages over people who stopped at the normal cap. A Title based on experience points would be pretty cool.

EagleDelta1 · Dec 23, 2008, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Can I make note of something here?
What if neither of you is right. I keep seeing arguments on various GW related forums on how GW2 should be or will be and arguments (a lot claiming the "the majority of players in GW" Argument). That is totally wrong. If you haven't read this by one of the creators of ANet and GW: http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php
you should - it gives you a lot of insight on how ANet makes their games. And takes serious note of this particular passage:

"Don't assume that most of your players are reading your website and consuming information about your game. Most of your players will never read your website, never visit fansites, and never participate in forum discussions. We are often immersed in the community forums and rants and raves posted to game fansites, and it is easy to lose perspective about the knowledge level of most of our players. Players who participate in fansites and send six-page emails to your community team are experts at your game – they probably know more about it than you do – so it's important to realize that they do not represent the average player. The vast majority of your players are not digging into every detail of every spell..."

Simply put - those of us in the forums are the MINORITY not majority. Our opinions are important, but we DO NOT represent more than maybe 10-20% of the players/fan base.

As for your discussion Dreamwind:

your arguments may have some validity, but your "ANY grind is bad IMO" stance is very, very, VERY selfish and arrogant. You seem, to me at least, to be saying "I don't like a certain aspect of gameplay and so no other players should have the option to play that way either." Hate to say it, but what is SUPPOSED to make ANY MMO great is that there are a variety of ways each player can play (profs and builds don't count as true varieties: PvE, PvP, Farming, Crafting, socializing, etc - those are varieties). GW2 MUST make changes to it's old AND current formula to be successful in the future otherwise ppl playing now will get bored eventually.

I cannot and will not claim to know what NEEDS to be GW2 from a larger perspective since I don't know what the majority enjoys or wants, I can only give my opinions on what I enjoy and would like to see.

bel unbreakable · Dec 24, 2008, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Skill over time is actualy a pointless argument its all about time it is now and always has been about the time spent not the skill.
sure player (a) might be more skillful than player (b) but player (a) will need to put in time and effort to stay ahead of the curve to maintain his edge over player (b).
player (b) well he thinks hes already the greatest thing since sliced bread hes so skillful he does not even need to spend time learning any thing

wetwillyhip · Dec 24, 2008, 01:06 AM // 01:06

You have a good point Eagle, I think that should be well-noted.

To Bryant and Dreamwind.

I see two sides. Both have great arguments with valid support and reasoning. But the problem I see are the different frameworks of reasoning. According to the Myer's-Briggs Type Indicator I see one person as "Sensing and intuition" and the other "Thinking and Feeling". Correct me if I"m wrong, (I don't mean to label anyone in any condescending way and there's absolutely nothing wrong with these types,) but these types are opposites. I see one side extremely liberal and one side extremely conservative. What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much you two debate, there will always be something hanging between your arguments. There are very well put ideas, concepts, and reasonings, but they're coming from different sides of reasoning. I'm on nobody's side. I thought, if you two aren't aware already, I thought I should just point that out to help be aware. I also say this because I know you both are really trying to convince the other they're right on many points. And I notice the debate has been intense and lengthy.

BTW, I think a nice level cap at 200 would be good, I like grind, and I don't like grind. I'm in the middle

DreamWind · Dec 24, 2008, 01:11 AM // 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In other words yes, my skill no longer matters. I can indeed play through the game and beat and kill everything by simply grinding out my titles and stats without ever having to put together a coherent build. Awesome, okay.

Yep...I agree with you that is sadly the path Guild Wars took.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I keep bringing all of these things up because all of those games are not in any form of danger. The developers create all this optional "grind" yet aren't shunned for it and their games are held in great regard. They're able to add these systems into their games with no backlash.

Which begs the question: if so many other successful games can have this, why can't Guild Wars? How is it considered a "problem" to have things like this in the game? What makes Guild Wars so different?

I've already touched on this several times. Basically the problem is that the game went from a mostly skill>time game to a mostly time>skill game. The game CHANGED, it hasn't been this way since the beginning and that is what makes Guild Wars different.

It isn't just titles we are talking about here (although they are a big part of it), it is the ENTIRE game. Balance plays a key part in this as well...the power creep made the game so much easier. There are many factors. By simply adding more grind opportunities, the game and its players as a whole do not care about skill anymore. You could respond by saying they never cared...but then why change the game?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This could go back to your original claim that it went "against the premise" of Guild Wars, but seeing how there's little point to being against something so wildly insignificant I would question such a stance.

You are basically saying their original premise is insignificant....which is basically saying that skill>time is insignificant...which I think is dumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

There could be numerous reasons for the transition. It's true that you shouldn't fix what's not broken, but is that what's necessarily at the discussion? ANet might just want a change of scenery, maybe they really do want to make a wildly different game. Right nowm though, the problem lies more in the players immediately correlating high levels in MMO's as a step down a bad road.

Because in all likelihood it is a bad road...at least coming from my perspective. Guild Wars in raising the level cap alone is becoming more like other MMOS. What is the need to do it? Yes we could say maybe they just want a change of scenery, but what kind of reason is that when there is an already perfect system in Prophecies? Not to mention, the reasons for players wanting the higher level cap (as shown in this thread) are quite sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

If you haven't read this by one of the creators of ANet and GW: http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php
you should - it gives you a lot of insight on how ANet makes their games. And takes serious note of this particular passage:

"Don't assume that most of your players are reading your website and consuming information about your game. Most of your players will never read your website, never visit fansites, and never participate in forum discussions. We are often immersed in the community forums and rants and raves posted to game fansites, and it is easy to lose perspective about the knowledge level of most of our players. Players who participate in fansites and send six-page emails to your community team are experts at your game – they probably know more about it than you do – so it's important to realize that they do not represent the average player. The vast majority of your players are not digging into every detail of every spell..."

Simply put - those of us in the forums are the MINORITY not majority. Our opinions are important, but we DO NOT represent more than maybe 10-20% of the players/fan base.

I have read that, and I have to tell you that it has been picked apart SEVERAL times by various people on the forums. See I agree with most of what he is saying in that article, but the problem is that he has backslid in Guild Wars 1 on several of the things he mentioned. I will have to find the post that completely picks it apart, but I know it is somewhere.

The part that you pointed out is even more telling. He states that people on fansites and those who write long detailed letters about the game might even know more about the game than the creators! And I have to say in this case, that he is absolutely correct. This is ESPECIALLY true in regards to things such as game balance, but other areas as well.

Now this raises the point...why wouldn't you listen to the people who know a lot about your game over the people who are, frankly, clueless? If the knowledge level of the average player is low (as he basically states), then why would you listen to them? Shouldn't you be listening to the people who know what the hell they are talking about? Shouldn't you be listening to the devoted fans who want to make the game better?

The answer from Anet is appparently a resounding NO. They need to listen to the players who don't know anything so they can hit the immediate jackpot. Everybody knows that their marketing model is terrible for long term game longevity, and Guild Wars 1 is proof. The game has gotten worse over time (by most accounts) but Anet has made money! Does that mean all the decisions made were good for the franchise? Nope. Doesn't it mean they should have listened more to the people who knew what they were talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

your arguments may have some validity, but your "ANY grind is bad IMO" stance is very, very, VERY selfish and arrogant. You seem, to me at least, to be saying "I don't like a certain aspect of gameplay and so no other players should have the option to play that way either." Hate to say it, but what is SUPPOSED to make ANY MMO great is that there are a variety of ways each player can play (profs and builds don't count as true varieties: PvE, PvP, Farming, Crafting, socializing, etc - those are varieties). GW2 MUST make changes to it's old AND current formula to be successful in the future otherwise ppl playing now will get bored eventually.

Is it arrogant, or is it truthful? Is any amount of grind good? I don't think so...particularly with Guild War's advertising. If you can get a petition of people that say they enjoy grind, I'd be happy to back down on my stance. Until then I claim that any grind is bad.

And you forget that Guild Wars did not start as a typical MMO as you claim. It was a CORPG. Yep thats right! So my stance is that the game should have remained what it was. Also to say the great thing is all MMOS is the variety is just false. I don't have a lot of time to get into it now, but I think I've gotten my points across for now. Details later if they are requested.

Bryant Again · Dec 24, 2008, 01:30 AM // 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by bel unbreakable

Skill over time is actualy a pointless argument its all about time it is now and always has been about the time spent not the skill.
sure player (a) might be more skillful than player (b) but player (a) will need to put in time and effort to stay ahead of the curve to maintain his edge over player (b).
player (b) well he thinks hes already the greatest thing since sliced bread hes so skillful he does not even need to spend time learning any thing

That's how it's supposed to be. It's different when you're better than other players simply because you grinded to get better gear.

wetwillyhip · Dec 24, 2008, 01:42 AM // 01:42

alright! SWEET, I'm driving on the ignore road. not a problem, continue. My work here is finished haha.

DreamWind · Dec 24, 2008, 07:06 AM // 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetwillyhip

To Bryant and Dreamwind.

I see two sides. Both have great arguments with valid support and reasoning. But the problem I see are the different frameworks of reasoning. According to the Myer's-Briggs Type Indicator I see one person as "Sensing and intuition" and the other "Thinking and Feeling". Correct me if I"m wrong, (I don't mean to label anyone in any condescending way and there's absolutely nothing wrong with these types,) but these types are opposites. I see one side extremely liberal and one side extremely conservative. What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much you two debate, there will always be something hanging between your arguments. There are very well put ideas, concepts, and reasonings, but they're coming from different sides of reasoning.

Hmm...then the question becomes which of us is "sensing and intuition" and which of us is "thinking and feeling". Which one of us is liberal and which one of us is conservative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wetwillyhip

BTW, I think a nice level cap at 200 would be good, I like grind, and I don't like grind. I'm in the middle

Why 200?

Skyy High · Dec 24, 2008, 07:35 AM // 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Which begs the question: if so many other successful games can have this, why can't Guild Wars? How is it considered a "problem" to have things like this in the game? What makes Guild Wars so different?

Two reasons, both of which are bad.
1) Players saw the oft-mentioned "skill > time" and "no mandatory grind" advertisments, and assumed that you could get anything you wanted in the game with near-zero time investment, possibly even without any kind of skill to speak of.
2) GW often attracts players who are backlashing against traditional MMOs, and any mention of the word "grind" drives these poor souls into fits of hysteria.

Optional grind means that the people who like treadmills can run as much as they want, and the people who don't can get off whenever they like and realize they're still in the same place as the guy on the treadmill. There is no reason to dislike optional grind, achievements, etc. You can argue that they rewarded the wrong type of titles (quest title in place of drunkard/sweet tooth/etc), you can argue that grindy titles should never effect one's strength (ie, GW:EN rep titles and PvE skills) and I wouldn't disagree with you on both points. I think that ANet has, in fact, listened to us quite a bit about these issues (see: title rebalance, GW:EN PvE skill progression being very limited based on title rank, etc) and I hope they design GW2's achievements with these issues in mind. However, demanding that the game contain NO GRIND WHATSOEVER is foolish; not only does that selfishly remove something that can, in fact, be fun for a good section of the playerbase, but it also begs the question, who defines what grind is? For many players, simply playing the storyline a second time through with a new character is a grind, which is why we have so many runners for everything. On the other hand, we had players who completed 100% cartography and mission/bonus for every mission in Prophecies before titles were ever added. How can you design a game "without grind" when players have such differing views on what grind is?

DreamWind · Dec 24, 2008, 09:21 AM // 09:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

1) Players saw the oft-mentioned "skill > time" and "no mandatory grind" advertisments, and assumed that you could get anything you wanted in the game with near-zero time investment, possibly even without any kind of skill to speak of.

I think you are getting time and skill confused. Take a look at the Prophecies box. You know...the one where "skill determines your path" plastered in big letters across it or something along those lines. If somebody looked and that and thought "gee hopefully I'll be able to do things that only require time and not skill to acquire", well then they're an idiot. The game was marketed as a skill game. Any time you actually spent playing was supposed to be for improving your skill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

2) GW often attracts players who are backlashing against traditional MMOs, and any mention of the word "grind" drives these poor souls into fits of hysteria.

From what I can see, GW attracts a lot of people who would be playing those traditional MMOs but won't/can't due to the monthly fee. I suppose the people who are backlashing against those MMOs are a distant second, but to say that Guild Wars players don't enjoy grind is a big stretch...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

Optional grind means that the people who like treadmills can run as much as they want, and the people who don't can get off whenever they like and realize they're still in the same place as the guy on the treadmill.

See this is where the misunderstanding is. What about the people who bought the game because there would be no treadmills in the game? Perhaps treadmills annoy them and they are trying to avoid them? Perhaps they don't want to be associated with a game that has treadmills in it? Instead they bought a game where everybody was supposed to be weightlifting (and it was advertised as a weightlifting game). Adding treadmills, to me, is a betrayal to those people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

However, demanding that the game contain NO GRIND WHATSOEVER is foolish; not only does that selfishly remove something that can, in fact, be fun for a good section of the playerbase, but it also begs the question, who defines what grind is?

Its not foolish at all to demand no grind when the game advertised no grind. So what if it can be fun for a good section of the playerbase? Give us a skill that does 10 billion damage...that would be fun for a good section of the playerbase too. Does that mean it is right to put in the game? And grind is easily defined...in the dictionary.

Bryant Again · Dec 24, 2008, 11:43 AM // 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Yep...I agree with you that is sadly the path Guild Wars took.

lolright.

You're either intentionally messing with me or have a very different understanding of what 'optional grind' means. When grind is optional it means you are at no consequence for not doing it. It means having two characters - one who maxed their cartographer titles and one who didn't - be exactly the same in power.

Also, players can "no longer care about skill" when there's something there to replace or make up for it. There isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

You are basically saying their original premise is insignificant....which is basically saying that skill>time is insignificant...which I think is dumb.

Incorrect. I'm saying that ANet being against such a form of "grind" is as frivolous as being against the color green.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

See this is where the misunderstanding is. What about the people who bought the game because there would be no treadmills in the game? Perhaps treadmills annoy them and they are trying to avoid them? Perhaps they don't want to be associated with a game that has treadmills in it? Instead they bought a game where everybody was supposed to be weightlifting (and it was advertised as a weightlifting game). Adding treadmills, to me, is a betrayal to those people.

I'm not sure if everyone would put "mandatory grind" (grind you have to do to progress through the game) in the same boat as optional grind. This goes back to what Skyy recently said and what I touched on numerous posts ago. It's that not everyone's definition of "grind" is going to be the same.

And a little somin-somin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Give us a skill that does 10 billion damage...that would be fun for a good section of the playerbase too.

Comparing apples to garbage.

DreamWind · Dec 24, 2008, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

lolright.

You're either intentionally messing with me or have a very different understanding of what 'optional grind' means. When grind is optional it means you are at no consequence for not doing it. It means having two characters - one who maxed their cartographer titles and one who didn't - be exactly the same in power.

I just think its funny. In the Ursan threads me and you were together that "don't like it don't use it" was completely stupid, but now I got people all over me using it here.

Yes I am at no consequence for not doing it...in fact it doesn't affect me at all. But it shouldn't be in the game to begin with. If a game advertises no grind, it shouldn't have any grind (or at least very minimal) and it should DEFINATELY not be adding more. If a game advertises skill>time, it shouldn't be constantly adding things that are time>skill. Optional or not does not matter whatsoever to my points. While I am at no consequence, the game as it was known is at consequence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Also, players can "no longer care about skill" when there's something there to replace or make up for it. There isn't.

Yes there is...optional grind where skill isn't needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Incorrect. I'm saying that ANet being against such a form of "grind" is as frivolous as being against the color green.

I would agree with you...if the game was this way all along...in which case I never would have bought it to begin with and we wouldn't be having this discussion!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's that not everyone's definition of "grind" is going to be the same.

So take out all grind and be done with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Comparing apples to garbage.

More like perfectly relevent to this thread. Throughout all I see are people either saying "don't like it don't use it" or "why not". Both are equally as bad. I can say "why not" to ANYTHING. Anything in the world! A more legitimate argument for adding grind or raising the level cap would start with "WHY". "Why not" is a waste of time.

ensoriki · Dec 24, 2008, 01:50 PM // 13:50

The level cap is fine for well pvp and such, but I believe A-net themselves would prosper better if it was a 50 level cap.

As long as you can create a pvp character, pvp will not have problems.
If you can get to level 50 in say a week and a half 2 weeks, then the grind isn't that bad, and so it's fine, considering theres a story that goes along with you leveling up.
Max weapons should be harder to obtain in pve, as otherwise people are only trading weapons for skins. There should be weapon mods for various things.

but anyways

50 level cap seems fine, as long as their is a make a pvp character thing, it probably means they balanced things around a 50 level cap.

Crom The Pale · Dec 24, 2008, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensoriki

The level cap is fine for well pvp and such, but I believe A-net themselves would prosper better if it was a 50 level cap.

As long as you can create a pvp character, pvp will not have problems.
If you can get to level 50 in say a week and a half 2 weeks, then the grind isn't that bad, and so it's fine, considering theres a story that goes along with you leveling up.
Max weapons should be harder to obtain in pve, as otherwise people are only trading weapons for skins. There should be weapon mods for various things.

but anyways

50 level cap seems fine, as long as their is a make a pvp character thing, it probably means they balanced things around a 50 level cap.

I believe that Anet has already stated that for PvP all players will be auto set at the same level. So the level cap has no meaning out side of PvE.

The concept of Skill over Time was never true, it was very missleading to some from the very start. You MUST spend TIME playing the game, unlocking skills and working with team mates to learn how to be good.

What Anet was trying to say is more like this:

PvP is a level field of battle where a players skill at playing, and that of his team mates, will determine the outcome. Players levels and gear will NOT have a major impact upon PvP.

PvE has an easily achievable maximum level and max items that are availible to everyone.

I believe that in GW2 player skill will only impact PvP and that players levels will only show how far into the PvE aspect they have progressed. As such the level is nothing more than a flag to show how much you have done in PvE and the actual max number, ie 20 or 500, has little or no meaning.

The progression of the character is what matters, not the number over his head.

cellardweller · Dec 24, 2008, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

The concept of Skill over Time was never true, it was very missleading to some from the very start. You MUST spend TIME playing the game, unlocking skills and working with team mates to learn how to be good.

Thats the oft quoted misinterpretaion of the phrase. Broken pve skills aside I'm as good with the 40hr old warrior on my second account as I am with the 3k hr old warrior on my main - thats skill>time, the difference between any two characters is directly between the chair and the keyboard.

EagleDelta1 · Dec 24, 2008, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I think you are getting time and skill confused. Take a look at the Prophecies box. You know...the one where "skill determines your path" plastered in big letters across it or something along those lines. If somebody looked and that and thought "gee hopefully I'll be able to do things that only require time and not skill to acquire", well then they're an idiot. The game was marketed as a skill game. Any time you actually spent playing was supposed to be for improving your skill.

Ok, you need to reread it, cause, while the box DOES say Skill>time, it never says ANYWHERE that there is NO grind. I just went over the box 2-3 times to make sure. Also, you keep assuming that a majority of GW players, old and new, bought the game for that reason. The HUGE advertisement on the box is the "FREE ONLINE PLAY" plastered on every GW campaign/Expansion box, the skill>time advertisement is on the fold-out of the box & most ppl that buy games don't look at those. I'm willing to bet the AT LEAST 60-70% of the ppl that bought the game saw the "FREE ONLINE PLAY" on the box and NOT the Skill>Time statement, which doesn't support the NO grind statement, maybe minimal grind, but not NO grind.

Sora267 · Dec 24, 2008, 10:42 PM // 22:42

I think that I read somewhere that if they decided to go with a high level cap, they would have its benefits plateau at a certain point near the middle where you would pretty much be gaining levels for the sake of gaining levels towards the end.

cellardweller · Dec 25, 2008, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sora of the Divine

I think that I read somewhere that if they decided to go with a high level cap, they would have its benefits plateau at a certain point near the middle where you would pretty much be gaining levels for the sake of gaining levels towards the end.

The definition of "pretty much" is the point that many people that love GW have issues with. If they were staying true to the first game then "pretty much" would mean that you'd receive cosmetic enhancements, if not then I can only hope that some other franchise moves in to take up the niche that made GW a great game.