Curse

Amryn · Jan 17, 2008, 07:11 PM // 19:11

To those complaining about walking in wow....please tell me you knew about the "auto-run" button so that everytime you moved, you were running, not walking?

Isileth · Jan 17, 2008, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle222

So tell me...why are you playing GW exactly? Go play single player if you do not want to be in contact with anyone

Just because I cant really be bothered to make a new reply to the same reply thats been used several times already im just going to paste an old response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

And just because people dont want to group with random players does not mean they dont want to play online with others.

Many play with guilds members and friends. When they arent on they go solo.
Then people who came for the PvP and when in PvE like to go solo.
Those people that do pug but when they dont have time or no one else is on go solo.

I know several of my friends purchased GW because they could play with their friends when they are on and if not grab AI. They would not have purchased it had taking AI not been an option.

And then yes, there are those who purchased it with the sole purpose of taking AI.
Why did I purchase an online game where I could do that? Because GW is advertised as a game where you can do that.

And also

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

I dont want to spent 20 mins forming a team just to play.
I dont want to have someone quit or go afk mid mission.
I want to be able to quit or go afk mid mission.
I dont want someone who will spend the mission swearing at me.
I dont want someone who will spend the mission talking about his penis.
I dont want someone who will spend the mission spouting racial hate.
I want to be able to enjoy the team build aspect of the game.

But also, just because I dont play with random people doesnt mean I dont play with people.
I play with friends and guild members when they are on and everyone has time free. But a lot of the time that just doesnt happen, even when it does most of the time not everyone wants to do the same thing.

Dont make the mistake of thinking that just because someone doesnt want to play with some random player they dont want to play with anyone at all.

***edit***

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amryn

To those complaining about walking in wow....please tell me you knew about the "auto-run" button so that everytime you moved, you were running, not walking?

I think they are refering to the fact you cant just map travel to the area you want. You are required to walk all the way there. Now even if it only takes 5-10 mins, thats 5-10 mins.

Now while its something that can be easily overcome, map travel could still be available (or a teleport spell, portal etc) its still an option that it may be designed that way on purpose.

Ec]-[oMaN · Jan 17, 2008, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

But, it's makes farming a lot more lame, unless in a dungeon, because people will just sit and camp for the respawn of a certain boss or mob group.

That won't bother me as long as they add the option to PK people without stiff penalties like in Lineage2, you could PK but then you turned red and also had the chance to drop equipment if someone ganked you ^^.

Brian the Gladiator · Jan 17, 2008, 07:18 PM // 19:18

As long as they put in some sort of a rapid transit (Mass Effect reference) allowing you to move from town to town without having to walk all the way there, im fine with it.

By rapid transit, if you have never played mass effect, I mean that there is some form of transportation in the game, like a train, that you can board. Then it goes to a loading screen, and all of a sudden your character will jump out of the train when it reaches the predetermined destination.

This idea could be a good money sink for GW 2 as well. They could make it cost 100g to ride the train, or you could purchase a card that gives free rapid transport for 6 months for 10k a piece...

This way, I wont have to walk to every town that I want to visit. Having mounts, like in WoW, would be kool too.

In fact, I'm adding this to the game suggestions... lol

tmr819 · Jan 17, 2008, 07:24 PM // 19:24

Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

If they do it right, you won't be forced to do anything.

and response...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

What utter nonsense. By definition, a persistent world forces you into contact with other players. They are moving about in the game world, attacking stuff you'd like to attack, completing quests you'd like to complete, and generally being in the way. There's no way to ignore them.

I think Mordakai is correct here and that you are greatly underestimating ArenaNet. You are also highlighting the (potential) negatives of persistence and discounting the positives (yes, there are positives!).

Having played WoW pretty extensively, I can say that sharing your explorable online world with other players isn't nearly so horrible as all that. Most of the time, I would hardly see anyone when out in some WoW hinterland (and not just in The Hinterlands, either

). When I did, more often than not it made no difference at all OR it was actually helpful, as the other player and I would team up to get something done.

Yes, there was kill stealing and occasional queueing up to kill some boss or other, which is very annoying. But ArenaNet has said specifically that this will not be a problem in GW2. How they are going to circumvent those issues is anybody's guess.

One of the things I have heard (I don't recall where I read this, though) is that there will be "population control" for persistent areas in much the way the districts are handled now, so that even though explorable areas will be persistent, they won't be swarming with other players either -- and it may even be that you can select your district in much the way I now usually select "International" when I don't want to be in a crowded outpost. That's just conjecture, of course. But if you have district options for persistent areas (the towns and outposts) in GW1, it seems more than feasible that there might be a similar option/feature in GW2.

Personally, I think the addition of persistence in GW2 has major possibilities for improving the game, and I am looking forward to it. Of all the features coming in GW2, this is one of the most promising, in my opinion.

Vinraith · Jan 17, 2008, 07:29 PM // 19:29

The difference, tmr, is that you want to play an MMOG, and I don't. I'm just looking for a fun action RPG that I can play solo or with friends. GW1 was that, GW2 clearly won't be.

tmr819 · Jan 17, 2008, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

The difference, tmr, is that you want to play an MMOG, and I don't.

You definitely got me there!

I think it will be interesting to see what kind of beastie GW2 actually turns out to be.

Balan Makki · Jan 17, 2008, 07:56 PM // 19:56

Hmm, well I just posted this in another tread and I'm only guessing here, but It might be that we'll be getting a very large persistent world with an option to enter any/all of it as a private instance if we so choose, for missions quests etc. I'm thinking Arena Net has some pretty sophisticated tech planned for GW2. One of the reasons so much is still under raps.

Darksun · Jan 17, 2008, 08:12 PM // 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ouchie

Then camping will be a big problem

It's split into DISTRICTS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

I'm just looking for a fun action RPG that I can play solo or with friends. GW1 was that, GW2 clearly won't be.

Why do you say that when you know that GW2 will be split 50/50? There will still be many instanced areas of the games (the PC gamer said about 50/50) and they pointed out that KS & camping will still not be an issue. I honestly don't think it will be a big issue. Wouldn't you like to be able to join a guildie that is half was through a mission/quest whatever?

Aerian_Skybane · Jan 17, 2008, 08:33 PM // 20:33

Although this is purely speculation and imaginative invention on my part, I am looking forward to a semi-persistent world, especially if it works out as I see fit.

I have no idea the feasibility/efficiency of this system, but it works in my head .

1.) You are in a town/output akin to the current model, accessible by Map Travel (MT makes GW awesome imho).

2.) The persistence/instance nature of the world is done in what I will call layers.

A.) There is the core, first layer town, where there are no baddies, no non-holiday or special event persistent events (like the dragon example), and no "World PvP" events (speculation since I have no idea how that would work in the theory). This is where jovial times are had and merchanting, storage, crafting, etc etc are located. More or less it is similar to what we have now. This is what you can map travel too.

B.) Second layer is the persistent zone, immediately outside (non-portal access) of the town boundaries. It is indicated somehow by either a physical marker/wall/bridge/something obvious that you have left the relative safety of the town and entered a live zone. Here is where the persistent model takes place. Quests can be done, people can be assisted, skills trained, events conquered, and of course things killed . PvP events can happen here (again I will mention these assuming they will happen this way), all the fun stuff of a persistent zone.

C.) The third layer is instanced play. One thing to note is that although my "chart" is circular, that is just a very rough model, and only made because I have no skill whatsoever in creating fancy models and the such. Especially at work . Each layer is not just another circumference on the model, but also includes the smaller zones. For example, the "safe" zone of town could become instanced in a specialized quest, becoming the 3rd layer in essence (ala the Nightfall quests in Lions Arch), and an instanced layer 2 (persistent zone) becoming layer 4. This layer extends to the whole model, plus the "outer" fringes that can ONLY be accessed as instance by portals either found in town or in the persistent zone, or by transportation via quest or event (bringing up the possibility of instanced events in addition to persistence events), and would be the final layer, layer 5. The outer layer model will ONLY be instanced, and can be freely accessed by portal/some other method to be determined, similar to how the current model in GW works. The other instanced situations (as in layers 1 and 2 becoming layers 3 and 4, aka Town and Persistent Zone becoming instanced) by quest/mission/event/etc, as those two zones are naturally persistent and their instanced version are different in essence (removal of merches etc for Town, removal of normal activity in the zone). This would be very much like the access to NF quest in Lions Arch for the town/outpost zone, and the mission zone structure of Nightfall for the persistent zone.

Model:

As you can see it is EXCEEDINGLY simple and I hope not every "area" would look like this. Basically, this is a theory mockup of if GW consisted of just one zone of one city lol. Very basic, not to mention crappily done in Paint.

Green is Layer 1: Town (Persistant)
Layer 3: Instanced Town (Limited Access)

Orange is Layer 2: Persistant Zone (Persistant)
Layer 4: Instanced World Zone (Limited Access)

Red is Layer 5: Instanced Area Zone (Free Access via portal system)

To me this system is logical because it easily combines an instance and persistent system while creating immersion and keeping player collision problems at a relative minimum. Quests could very well be mostly in Layer 5, which allows a player to trek through persistent zones to get to certain Layer 5 zones. In my mind, the Layer 5 instance zones are like a player going into an unpopulated area where he would less likely come across other players, whereas the persistent zone would be more of a high-traffic area immediately outside of a city.

Some Layer 5 zones would be harder to get to, some incredibly easy (as in the current GW model), and some only accessible through another instanced zone (like getting to the more remote zones in GW such as The Falls). Some Layer 5 zones would interconnect (say enter Zone 1 from persistent world portal location, and a portal (or some other mechanism for this separate than normal instanced portals) can connect from Zone 1 to Zone 2 etc etc. These instanced zones could also be used to connect to other persistent zones and towns/outposts. Other Towns/outposts might also be connected together purely by persistent zones as well to keep things mixed up.

Various things would need to be tried with this, but I think it would allow an amazing amount of various play styles to exist, and keep most GW fans current and potential very happy. This of course is my estimate, and this entire Layer deal might only make sense to me lol.

Lonesamurai · Jan 17, 2008, 08:34 PM // 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darksun

Not sure what you are getting at here, but GW2 won't be split into servers.

Actually it will

There going to be World Vs. World PvP

However ANet have already stated that we'll be able to freely move between Worlds/Servers like we can in Guild Wars now

Balan Makki · Jan 17, 2008, 09:36 PM // 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerian_Skybane

I have no idea the feasibility/efficiency of this system, but it works in my head .

2.) The persistence/instance nature of the world is done in what I will call layers.

Yep, my guess exactly. See my posts on pseudo instancing and instancing layers in the Suggestion Forum: Guild Wars 2 Suggestion thread. Starting around page 32 to the end.

I've been trying to second-guess the evolution of GW1 to GW2 based on what GW1 has currently done, and what it could do on steroids. I have been loading up ideas and concepts on how a persistent world could, in fact, have a far more Robust Instanced system than is currently seen GW1. Not only would it be the best of both worlds, it would be Better than Both worlds, More robust persistent environment, as well as instancing never seen before in an MMO.

If my guesses are remotely correct, and Arena Net can do even half of what could be done with Layering and Pseudo Instancing. GW2 will floor the MMO industry and turn it on it's ear. It's likely why we've not heard a peep out of them for some time, they're not going to commit until they're committed.

It's why I keep claiming that Blizzards next MMO will be a GW clone.

Sirius-NZ · Jan 17, 2008, 09:57 PM // 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ouchie

Then camping will be a big problem

Camping what?

There's nothing stopping ArenaNet from putting all the interesting stuff (in terms of drops) in the instanced areas.

Aerian_Skybane · Jan 17, 2008, 10:13 PM // 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

Yep, my guess exactly. See my posts on pseudo instancing and instancing layers in the Suggestion Forum: Guild Wars 2 Suggestion thread. Starting around page 32 to the end.

I've been trying to second-guess the evolution of GW1 to GW2 based on what GW1 has currently done, and what it could do on steroids. I have been loading up ideas and concepts on how a persistent world could, in fact, have a far more Robust Instanced system than is currently seen GW1. Not only would it be the best of both worlds, it would be Better than Both worlds, More robust persistent environment, as well as instancing never seen before in an MMO.

If my guesses are remotely correct, and Arena Net can do even half of what could be done with Layering and Pseudo Instancing. GW2 will floor the MMO industry and turn it on it's ear. It's likely why we've not heard a peep out of them for some time, they're not going to commit until they're committed.

It's why I keep claiming that Blizzards next MMO will be a GW clone.

Sounds like we are of the same mind

. Conceptually its a little bit more complicated to understand, but functionally I see it working exceedingly well, dependant on a few programming things of course. I have no idea HOW it could be implemented, since my programming knowledge is limited to the EE field and such, but if it CAN be done I would love to see it implemented. Would provide the best of both worlds while keeping with a standard of persistence that would allow both pro-instance people and pro-persistence people to be joyous.

In my mind, a weakness of the system would be the persistent zones, because who would go there. Well thats where you put the randomness of mobs, event quests, etc etc to be. The instance zones would be more prolific quests unrelated to the world as a whole and of course story progression, with further out exploration being done "out in the instance zones" as a whole. At first the whole system seems cold and mechanical, but I think thats only because I have been relating it to "layers" and "instances", instead of "epics", "land", or "deep woods/desert".

I hope ANet really creates something unique for GW2 that is enjoyable by both the community as an entity and for a player as the self. Really Zen stuff lol.

EDIT: ADDENDUM:

I also have no offers of solutions to persistent problems such as KSing, camping, and the such in the persistent layers, but I will let the people who are paid to figure that out.

Mordakai · Jan 17, 2008, 10:25 PM // 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

What utter nonsense. By definition, a persistent world forces you into contact with other players. They are moving about in the game world, attacking stuff you'd like to attack, completing quests you'd like to complete, and generally being in the way. There's no way to ignore them.

I find it bizarre that so many people want a persistent game world but leave local chat off at all times in GW. The people you're (rightly) ignoring are exactly the people you're asking to share a game world with. Have fun with that, I'll be playing something else.

Excuse me, but you don't think it's possible to design a persistant world without those drawbacks?

What if GW2 doesn't have silly "kill x of y quests to collect z"?

We have no idea how the structure of GW2 will even work, it seems silly to me that Anet would implement the very things they saw were wrong with persistant MMORPGs in the first place!

The Great Al · Jan 17, 2008, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Having one huge district of a town would be a disaster. There are already some big towns like LA, where after 2.5 years of having GW, still can't find my way around it. Also there'd be too much nonsense in the chat windows.

Mordakai · Jan 17, 2008, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Al

Having one huge district of a town would be a disaster. There are already some big towns like LA, where after 2.5 years of having GW, still can't find my way around it. Also there'd be too much nonsense in the chat windows.

WoW has even bigger towns than GW.

They get around the problem by having guards having a list of NPCs, and then flagging the mini-map of where to go.

Plus, unlike Guild Wars towns which seem overcrowded even with districts, in WoW people tend to space out. And for the places that are crowded (Banks, Auction Halls) it works, because you WANT those places to look busy. Plus, it's not like you can't easily click on the Banker...

Sirius-NZ · Jan 17, 2008, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerian_Skybane

I have no idea HOW it could be implemented, since my programming knowledge is limited to the EE field and such, but if it CAN be done I would love to see it implemented.

Lots of "if(instanced) then ..." where appropriate. Et cetera.

If you can describe it in concrete terms it can be programmed pretty easily; the stuff that gets difficult are the abstract things (e.g. programming a computer to recognise objects from shape and colour).

The other problem is how it fits in to the existing program, which is where I can see most of the issues arising ... but it's not really too hard to do. The question is whether it fits into ArenaNet's vision.

Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard's next MMO is fairly similar to Guild Wars in some ways; there'll be differences though. I expect it to have a bigger emphasis on gear where GW has never focussed on that; also, it would more than likely still be subscription-based. Unless they intend to do a Diablo MMO, in which case all bets are off (because previous releases never were subscription-based either)...

Mordakai · Jan 17, 2008, 10:45 PM // 22:45

I'd be suprised if Blizzard's next MMO was not based somehow on StarCraft.

I know, I know, space-themed MMOs have not been sucessful yet. But then, people thought EQ was the last word in MMOs until WoW showed up.

Sirius-NZ · Jan 17, 2008, 10:45 PM // 22:45

Two words: EVE Online.