Curse

Balan Makki · Jan 19, 2008, 12:26 PM // 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

Yup, the impression I'm left with from the pre-press is that GW2 is being designed for people that don't particularly like GW. You know, the kind of GW player that says at every turn "I wish this game was more like WoW/Everquest/random other MMORPG."

Also keep in mind that absolutely no new press has been released regarding this turn towards WoW-lite for quite a long while. In a long, long while. . . But there have actually been recent statements by Arena Net that suggest much has changed since these early pre-press interviews etc. . . I'd wager that they are now trying to distance themselves from these early statements, having decided on more GW-Like systems, rather than WoW; that still provides players something to do in GW2 while waiting for the next expansion/campaign.

They'll likely have something to say very soon on what GW2 will Actually be like. If it's going to require a play-style similar to WoW, then they've just shot themselves in the foot. WoW is much better at being A Sugar Coated Evercrack, than GW2 could ever imagine being.

Numa Pompilius · Jan 19, 2008, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darksun

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

Sorry, missed that initially. How would GW2 be able to be both a large persistent world and not have servers? The server load can cause the present instanced system, which is designed for easy splitting into multiple servers without the user noticing, to its knees, so I don't see how they could have a persistent world with perhaps a million people and untold numbers of npc's and mobs without partitioning into servers.

Lonesamurai · Jan 19, 2008, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Sorry, missed that initially. How would GW2 be able to be both a large persistent world and not have servers? The server load can cause the present instanced system, which is designed for easy splitting into multiple servers without the user noticing, to its knees, so I don't see how they could have a persistent world with perhaps a million people and untold numbers of npc's and mobs without partitioning into servers.

No it has been confirmed there will be seperate servers, however just as CCP has has different servers andusing a stargate jumps you between the different servers, we'll be able to openly and freely move between the game servers

Rocky Raccoon · Jan 19, 2008, 02:48 PM // 14:48

I would like to see all missions and quests remain instanced, but if you are just exploring they could be non-instanced. I don't know the feasibility of doing this but it would give you the best of both ways.

ValaOfTheFens · Jan 19, 2008, 04:29 PM // 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazompora

Immersion should indeed be a choice; but that's exactly what a 100% Map Travel network will ruin in a persistent world: without exclusions, the whole inhabited world will merely be like one single megapolis.

Why not a few isolated towns aside of that 1 huge block of subway-stations?

There are quite a few locations like that now in GW1. The Ascalon settlement in North Kryta, Aerie in Kinya Province, Ronjok in Kourna(its outside the SS Santuary but its still a full town thats outside), and the countless Norn steads in the Far Shiverpeaks are all I can think of offhand. But they do exist.

Map travel doesn't erase the need to actually get to a place before you can map there. Plus you have to do some sort of exploration in order to do quests. I've never heard of anyone just doing missions and only the primary quests.

Bazompora · Jan 19, 2008, 05:13 PM // 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValaOfTheFens

There are quite a few locations like that now in GW1. The Ascalon settlement in North Kryta, Aerie in Kinya Province, Ronjok in Kourna(its outside the SS Santuary but its still a full town thats outside), and the countless Norn steads in the Far Shiverpeaks are all I can think of offhand. But they do exist.

They come close to what I mean, but severely lacking in facilities (usually just a merchant and 1 other commercant) and the impossibility to use them as anchor location or meeting place, makes them quite invalid as towns.

But yeah ... take those settelements as example for GW2; add persistency, the full set of facilities and the possibility to respawn/relog within (but no possibility to access Map Travel there or in surrounding explorable areas) to them; put a larger number of these at much more remoted locations with either unique crafters within or surrounded by interesting farm/mining sites ... and you get an idea of what I mean.

Making travel to and from these isolated towns difficult would incite players to devellop local "industrial" communities, which on their turn would trade materials/wares over distance through player-run transports.

Off course, the huge insta-travel-network world would remain a self-sufficient anarchistic block <as in GW1> and the imported goods would only be of estethic value, as to make the isolated towns completely and fully optional extras.

Turtle222 · Jan 19, 2008, 05:17 PM // 17:17

I am 100% sure that those that say they will not buy GW2, are most definitely going to buy it. When you play a game for two years, you always tend to play its sequel.

Unless GW moves genres like rts /fps etc then they won't (like warcraft series - kinda blew it for me when they went MMO).

Isileth · Jan 19, 2008, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle222

I am 100% sure that those that say they will not buy GW2, are most definitely going to buy it. When you play a game for two years, you always tend to play its sequel.

Unless GW moves genres like rts /fps etc then they won't (like warcraft series - kinda blew it for me when they went MMO).

I really cant agree with that.

If anything I would say sequels normally end up worse than the original.

Ill deffinately be more likely to take a look at it, but if its not what I want im not going to buy it. No matter how much I like the original im not going to buy a game that doesnt interest me.

ValaOfTheFens · Jan 19, 2008, 08:56 PM // 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazompora

They come close to what I mean, but severely lacking in facilities (usually just a merchant and 1 other commercant) and the impossibility to use them as anchor location or meeting place, makes them quite invalid as towns.

But yeah ... take those settelements as example for GW2; add persistency, the full set of facilities and the possibility to respawn/relog within (but no possibility to access Map Travel there or in surrounding explorable areas) to them; put a larger number of these at much more remoted locations with either unique crafters within or surrounded by interesting farm/mining sites ... and you get an idea of what I mean.

Making travel to and from these isolated towns difficult would incite players to devellop local "industrial" communities, which on their turn would trade materials/wares over distance through player-run transports.

Off course, the huge insta-travel-network world would remain a self-sufficient anarchistic block <as in GW1> and the imported goods would only be of estethic value, as to make the isolated towns completely and fully optional extras.

People would complain about that. There are huge areas of EoTN where I just want to scream because there isn't a nearby town. Outdoor towns would certainly lessen the load in my bags but if GW2 has DP like GW1 I wouldn't be likely to go to one.

Map travel must be available as a way to leave an area. It wouldn't erase the requirement of having to walk to the outdoor town. If the town is in a high level area and you don't want to fight your way out you should be able to leave via the map.

MsMassacre · Jan 19, 2008, 09:23 PM // 21:23

Non-instanced worlds are dumb.

Welcome to middle earth! You can tell its middle earth because there's a dozen idiots with stupid names running around trying to kill the same random bunny rabbits you have to kill, JUST LIKE IN THE BOOKS!

It'll probably make me not buy gw2.

Unholy Tank V · Jan 19, 2008, 09:29 PM // 21:29

I say yes to this because I have farmed a total of 4 hours in my entire GW life and yet I have three sets of 15k armor and a bunch of pwznr weapons from doing Elite Missions and FoW/UW purely

/signed

Bazompora · Jan 19, 2008, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValaOfTheFens

People would complain about that.

Some would, as there are complainers about everything. But I'm sure there'd be others thrilled about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValaOfTheFens

Map travel must be available as a way to leave an area. It wouldn't erase the requirement of having to walk to the outdoor town. If the town is in a high level area and you don't want to fight your way out you should be able to leave via the map.

See ... not only would that impair what immersion is still confined to the remote locations, but it would also take away their essence as micro-worlds by making them still subjected to the insta-travel network - be it in one way only.
The "requirement" to fight your way out would all make part of the situation one would have committed to fight his/her way in first. But, I'm certainly not saying mob encounters shouldn't be avoidable; it would just have to be a bit more in an RP-fashion, than simply warping out.

Zahr Dalsk · Jan 19, 2008, 10:45 PM // 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazompora

Some would, as there are complainers about everything. But I'm sure there'd be others thrilled about this.

See ... not only would that impair what immersion is still confined to the remote locations, but it would also take away their essence as micro-worlds by making them still subjected to the insta-travel network - be it in one way only.
The "requirement" to fight your way out would all make part of the situation one would have committed to fight his/her way in first. But, I'm certainly not saying mob encounters shouldn't be avoidable; it would just have to be a bit more in an RP-fashion, than simply warping out.

What if a friend comes online and only has half an hour to play Gw before they have to do something else, say work for example, and you want to play with them? In Gw you can do that. Map to them and it's all good. The ability for a quick, small play-session is pretty much one of the main points of Guild Wars that they used as one of their chief selling features. And in a persistent world with no map-travel, getting to the friend could take a long time in and of itself, extending the duration of the play session. Which is further extended when you and your friend have to travel all the way to the destination instead of mapping. Not good, this violates the spirit of Guild Wars.

ValaOfTheFens · Jan 19, 2008, 11:07 PM // 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazompora

See ... not only would that impair what immersion is still confined to the remote locations, but it would also take away their essence as micro-worlds by making them still subjected to the insta-travel network - be it in one way only.
The "requirement" to fight your way out would all make part of the situation one would have committed to fight his/her way in first. But, I'm certainly not saying mob encounters shouldn't be avoidable; it would just have to be a bit more in an RP-fashion, than simply warping out.

This immersion you keep talking about is something that only really matters to hardcore players, which is a minority in the GW community. I've played WoW and I can tell you that walking to and from a place gets old real quick. Having to press the arrow keys for 5 mins just to get to a town can be extremely demoralizing, especially if you died and you respawn far away from where you were.

I need to know how ANet is going to handle dying and the distances between outposts before I can say anymore on this.

Bryant Again · Jan 19, 2008, 11:21 PM // 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bazompora

See ... not only would that impair what immersion is still confined to the remote locations, but it would also take away their essence as micro-worlds by making them still subjected to the insta-travel network - be it in one way only.
The "requirement" to fight your way out would all make part of the situation one would have committed to fight his/her way in first. But, I'm certainly not saying mob encounters shouldn't be avoidable; it would just have to be a bit more in an RP-fashion, than simply warping out.

Depends greatly. I for one become greatly immersed in Oblivion, even though I map travel. But I know plenty of others that play with mods that remove it, so it's obvious that it's a largely personal factor.

Bazompora · Jan 19, 2008, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

What if a friend comes online and only has half an hour to play Gw before they have to do something else, say work for example, and you want to play with them? In Gw you can do that. Map to them and it's all good. The ability for a quick, small play-session is pretty much one of the main points of Guild Wars that they used as one of their chief selling features. And in a persistent world with no map-travel, getting to the friend could take a long time in and of itself, extending the duration of the play session. Which is further extended when you and your friend have to travel all the way to the destination instead of mapping.

How about you simply simply don't hang out at those optional isolated towns <obviously meant for immersive not-so-casual play>, if you have casual cooperation scheduals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Not good, this violates the spirit of Guild Wars.

And I thought I was the dramaking here ...

Anyways ... we're talking towards Guild Wars 2, which according to many allready is "a violation of the spirit of Guild Wars".
I don't get this fear some have about GW2 being more than GW1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValaOfTheFens

This immersion you keep talking about is something that only really matters to hardcore players, which is a minority in the GW community.

True, but <then again> Guild Wars 2 might attract a fair share of hardcore players.
Also, note that the reality you state has been kept into account, as the insta-travel outpost-network is pictured to comprise the bulk of the gameworld, while the isolated towns would just be enclaves here and there <most likely> on the edges of the game world.

Zahr Dalsk · Jan 19, 2008, 11:30 PM // 23:30

What's wrong with the current system of instanced areas? Nothing. Why change it? Well, answer me that.

Bazompora · Jan 19, 2008, 11:40 PM // 23:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

What's wrong with the current system of instanced areas? Nothing. Why change it? Well, answer me that.

According to the info that has been unveiled so far, there still will be instancing in GW2; however, persistency would be added alongside that. So, you'll have both instanced and persistant play to your avail.
At least ... that's what I remember.

Sirius-NZ · Jan 20, 2008, 02:30 AM // 02:30

The problem with the current system of instanced areas is that it prevents you from having MMO gameplay. The system in GW2 is aimed to address that while still allowing some degree of instancing to avoid the problems of dungeon farming/loot camping/etc.

Snow Bunny · Jan 20, 2008, 02:33 AM // 02:33

I'm technologically challenged in a serious way, so bear with me.

GW2 will have WoW type world.

Ex: If I exit Maatu Keep (yes, it won't be in GW2, I know) there may be someone out there killing stuff/farming

If so, I sort of like this direction. I remember when I'd watch my sister play Maple Story, I was jealous of the player interaction ease despite GW's overall superiority.