Curse

thunderai · Oct 11, 2007, 01:29 PM // 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by semantic

Not saying there won't be stuff like that, but I'm thinking along other lines. Context-based, to me, means I have a basic attack or spell that produces different effects depending on what I'm doing (or the condition of my target) when I use it. So if I use a basic earth spell on a KD'ed opponent, he gets blinded. Or hit a KD'ed target with a basic Axe attack I get adrenaline and energy (or a power boost to the next attack if there's no adrenaline and energy). If I jump while using a powerful sword attack, it does extra damage but is easily interruptible. If I run at an enemy and slide and cast a water hex, I smash into him and cause Daze, etc. Point being, all the possible effects aren't necessarily documented, so there's a sort of emergent property to gameplay where players go out and discover how the game works, rather than read it on wiki.

That would turn GW into a none-adventure version of Legand of Zelda, and given that they could make the dungeons more adventure like. All you would have is Legand of Zelda.

I actually like the 2D limitation on movement, I dont see how making it 3D adds any value to the game. But thats me.

lyra_song · Oct 11, 2007, 02:16 PM // 14:16

One of the main problems (IMO) of the PvE/PvP divide is that the PvErs dont like any type of change to their builds, while the PvPers want the builds to change constantly so its new/fresh/interesting for PvP. Those who play both are ok with it.

And in GW, since both sides share the same skills, the PvE side is very vocal and sensitive to any changes made since its not something they ask for.

The game design works, creating a unified game, but the some players get frustrated by it. Because the balances dont often take into account usage of skills in PvE, it creates some instances where whole builds or classes are considered "useless" and loses its flavor of the month appeal. In reality those builds are still very viable, just no longer overpowered. Player perception builds on skill balances, for example, Paragons. Some players perceive then as crappy since they have received many nerfs, but in reality, they are still a very viable and powerful, and STILL an overpowered class. Or the Necro soul reaping fiasco. It was perceived as balanced since it has never been questioned or brought into account how it performs with some of the newer skills/attribute synergies.

Those are just a few examples of how the system creates skewed player perception.

One direction to go, as pointed out above, is to SEPERATE the PvE skills from the PvP skills. We have this to an extent with the PvE only skills.

This has its own problems. PvE builds using PvE skills are quite overpowered, but I dont think PvE players really give a damn. Theres no feeling of the need to balance it. However this creates a seperation of mindset, as well as radically seperating PvE playstyle from PvP. The lack of integration or at least simulation of a PvP environment in PvE (one could argue the Norn and Dwarven tournaments cover this...but i digress) doesn't give the PvE player a "taste" of PvP.

My own idea was to keep the skills the same, with slight variation to the PvE usage (additional damage while in pve, faster recharge in pve) and still maintain skill continuity and skill mechanics.

PERSONALLY, i want GW to continue its original theme of PvE and PvP together and further intergrate the two player types. All the various chapters have its good and bad sections, and i think theres been lots of hits and misses in the chapters.

For GW2, i would like these ideas to integrate the two playstyles further:
-elimination of the PvP-only character
-enough player slots to play all primary classes
-UAX while in a PvP area
-Max armor while in a PvP area
-All players instantly at Level cap while in a PvP area
-max weaponry in a PvP
-Essentially, the PvE character turns into the PvP-only character's behavior in a PvP area. Players would also be able to access "tiers" of PvP, based on their on accomplishments.
in addition:
-I really liked in Prophecies how there are multiple arenas scattered for different character levels, 1-10,11-15,15-20. Perhaps adding more PvP-quests throughout the storyline, based on an AB style or Aspenwood/Quarry style formula, as well as simple PvP quests (indirect competition perhaps). Of course these would be Non-primary quests....
-Relevance for PvP in the PvE world to exist. Really. However these relevance should not hinder casual NON-PVPers from doing anything. This implies PvP effects that are positive when its there, but you can live without.
-Intelligent Monster behavior and builds that are GOOD
-Map design that leads to more than just C+Space tactics
In terms of PvP itself:
-ELO ranking system based on win/loss percentage in ranked matches and divided into player performance (defensive rank, offensive rank)
-Multiple tier pvp
-party rank based on average player rank
-PvP awards based on MvP type awards (Most critical hits in a match, most healing in a match to party members below 25% health, etc.)

(ok im starting to ramble...ill stop now)

Mordakai · Oct 11, 2007, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by red orc

I didn't see anything they wanted to do about PVP in GW2. It makes me very sad.
You know in one of the forums there was a debate about GW Vs WOW and the sarcastic summary why WOW is better was:
"WOW owns because you can JUMP"

Now in GW2 you will also be able to jump. Jump to WoW2, jump to WOR, jumpt to Conan, jump to whatever will be the leading PVP game out there.

ANET, you created the biggest rpg pvp player base ever and introduced a real great game with great value to its palyers call GW. The only way you're going to do it again is to focus on the unique PVE-PVP game play you created.
Dont make a beutifull, free of charge, wow. It wont work.

IMO, the combination PvE/PvP gameplay of Guild Wars utterly fails. PvE players hate their skills changing, while PvP play requires it. It's been the biggest point of contention among players, and if Guild Wars 2 can just separate the two, it will be better for it.

(NOTE: I'm talking about "serious" PvP play - GvG and the like. Obviously, the Worldwide PvP that has been discussed to take place in persistant zones is not "serious" PvP. This is not a knock against the concept of casual PvP, I think it will be fun, and I plan to participate. I only mention it because I think it's important to separate casual PvP from serious PvP).

EDIT: I like lyra_song's ideas above.

Darksun · Oct 11, 2007, 03:28 PM // 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saphrium

Here is the thing: Anet needs to stop listening to who is the loudest.

They don't. They listen to who is the most common.

"Guild Wars lets you play the way you want to play. We've had a few years now of observing our players and their tendencies and preferences."

ANET just looks at the #s. 68% of people are actively trying to increase titles? they work. 12% of people deleted/stop playing with their MM after the SR change? It works. (I'm just making these #s up) The point is they KNOW if most people are good with the changes they make.
But people can't look past their own experiences and see the whole. Forums have, and always will have, the people who complain as the majority. Especially when this IS the place to complain. Chances are, that people who are ok with what is going on in game, don't say anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star Gazer

Quote:

Guild Wars lets you play the way you want to play

yeah we have heard this statement before.

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

People need to get it through their heads that NO GAME will ever let you play EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT. Lots of people want to get any weapon, mod, armor, skill etc right from the get go. that's "their way". Other people want to be able to make tons of gold by farming & expect the economy to still function normally. Some people want all the skills to stay PvE friendly and wonder why PvP has issues, or vice versa.
You can't play any way you want. They are trying to give more options & more ways to play the game differently.

Bocjo Bassannn · Oct 11, 2007, 03:42 PM // 15:42

Love the article posted gw2 looks like it has some big dreams and even bigger goals. Personaly I cant wait to play it.

Although since were "dreaming" about what we all would enjoy.. I simply have to ad this..... I want random monster behavior/spawns.... One of the most annoying and boring things to me as a pve player is knowing exactly where the next pop up is... the next patrol will go, what characters it contains ect ect ect..... The lack of randomness here is what to me gets old the fastest......

Perfect example here.... I created 6 characters in proph.... when I got to ascalon the first time and started questing I walked out the gate and YIKES two devouers got me YIKES wow that hurt maybe I should upgrade my armor. BUT, after that I always knew I would find those same two devouers at the top of the hill just outside the gate of ascalon ... Every last single time.. No more surprise, to me that was a let down....
Im no programer or anything I just know keeping where things jump out at you from totaly random... not just 10 or 15 diff patrol paths that randomize would at least for me kept things fresh and new for quite a bit longer.... Although Hard mode did help freshen things up again for a bit.... It still had the same ok go here... pull to here, stand there buff up, ok there is the patroll let them come stuff that normal mode had... To me after you played through an area 2 or 3 times it just got far to predictable.

So what im asking for isnt realy make it harder in the battle areas... But simply to make those battle areas require thought even after 30 or 40 trips into an area by simply makeing things spawn/patrol randomly even including the content of the baddies party... So that one skill set wont always be the best choice for an area... Makeing smart pulling agro management and simple paying attention and useing your skills smartly, count more than I know where everything is we can just run by this part... Or bring these two skills nothing will live... ect.... Basicaly I want a game that "feels like" it wants to beat me... as badly as I want to beat it...

Keep up the amazing work.... I for one will be here for gw2 and I cant wait to see what comes next.

TaCktiX · Oct 11, 2007, 05:05 PM // 17:05

Reading over the responses so far, I'd like to stick in a few conjectures I've had regarding Guild Wars 2, based on the skimpy details given thus far.

No/High Level cap: After a point, the level cap is a prestige thing. By all rights, my 6 million xp main character has an experience edge over the 140,600xp of a straight Level 20. Either a diminishing increase in health/atts, or a straight cutoff at some level, where you get skill points and gain levels, but gain no more health and attributes. That way the Level 300 Monk is showing their obvious experience in the game, while not being god-like in front of less-dedicated Level 50's.

Persistence: If anyone read the "Ultimate Guild Wars Guide," they got treated to two of the finest pieces of RPG lore I've ever read (aside from Tolkien material). Assaulting the dragons will require more than 8 people. Heck, it'll require an entire mass of people, working together to break through the fortress and by sheer force of will killing the dragon. That was a big disappointment in Nightfall and GW:EN for me: it only took 8 people to take down a god and a "Great Destroyer." Kinda nerfs the thrill.

Expansions: In the same vein as persistence, as players manage to assault and kill each of these dragons, you can't just "reset" the dragons. That's unfair to the people who made the assault. Expansions will introduce new areas, new super-enemies that will require the same deal, while keeping it fresh. They may offer some sort of "reset" for new players to the game, but overall world state will have the dragons defeated for good, with a new threat on the horizon.

World PvP: Know how there was the Faction line based on Alliance Battles? Think that, but with the actual game map having borders for each major race (and of course the borders of the dragons' armies). PvP would mix with PvE as each race/set of players pushes into enemy territory, and PvP people on the edge of a race/dragon border will end up fighting alongside PvE people trying to keep the dragon's hordes at bay. For me, that sounds VERY cool.

Emergent behavior: Similar to what semantic said, skills will have different effects/buffs/nerfs based on situation. If you're under a speed buff and you nail someone with a big hammer, I doubt they'll be able to stand up straight unless they're much bigger than you. If you jump from a hill onto a guy's head with your sword, I think that would amount to a critical hit, if not instant death. Damage from spells based on terrain (have a Flare spell bounce off a wall and into a mob) or position close to enemy (Getting a Flare in your face at close range would likely Blind you). The possibilities are endless, and as stated, that would make GuildWiki nice, but not a requisite to have a clue or enjoy yourself. Emergence alone would make PvP complex and different, while allowing casual PvE people to just discover their own way.

I will remind that this is pure conjecture. This may/may not be what they're planning, but this is what I got in my head when I read about features and such.

Miss Innocent · Oct 11, 2007, 05:37 PM // 17:37

I'm really disappointed with the races offered.

I've always thought the Forgotten were rather cool, and the Centaur and Tengu seemed interesting too. Of all the races that were in Guild Wars before GW:EN, the only one that's playable is the one that got the least attention -- the Charr, which popped up at the beginning of Prophecies and disappeared into the mists after that.

Now that Guild Wars has built some history, I'd like to see some of it honored in some way. I have nothing against the Asura nor any of the other new races, but I don't really care about them either. I've been interacting with the Tengu and Forgotten and Centaurs much longer, and I'd rather be one of them.

Edit:
I'd hate to have to struggle through lag to pull off some combo. "Jump and Rodgort's Invocation... lag... no, JUMP first, THEN... I'm dead? Stupid lag...".

thezed · Oct 11, 2007, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaCktiX

That was a big disappointment in Nightfall and GW:EN for me: it only took 8 people to take down a god and a "Great Destroyer." Kinda nerfs the thrill.

I liked your post/ideas, but just had to disagree with this one statement. For me, the fact that it only took 8 people to kill a god just gives the story that mythology feel. You know, the kind of stories where a single man does unbelieavable feats of greatness. You really see those kind of heros in Greek myths, old Chineese legends, and American "tall tales".

All just a diffrence of our narative preference I guess.

And remember, the first time the "Great Destroyer" was taken down it only took one person. And he was a DWARF!

Corwin_Andros · Oct 11, 2007, 06:27 PM // 18:27

They've already said in other places that there are going to be two different types of PVP in GW2. One being more casual and tied to PVE, like AB, or some of the newbie arena areas. The other type, the dedicated, hardcore PVP is going to more or less be its own version of the game, completely divorced from PVE. Hopefully this will mean two different skill tables, so that balancing the hardcore PVP will have no impact on PVE at all.

As for the features like jumping and swimming.. I can do with or without them, but it should make for some interesting gameplay changes either way. Unlike some of our more vocal compatriots, on the whole I've been MORE than satisfied with how the game has panned out over the past two years. Sure there are some things I don't particularly care for, but not one thing they've changed has been a game breaker.

From my own perspective, all of the grind elements beyond the 10k needed in faction and the SS requirement in NF are completely optional. I play the way I want to and enjoy it immensely, and don't worry about what others are doing.

So far all I've read about GW2, sounds very very promising, and I expect nothing less than a brilliant game from the folks that make my current all time favorite pc game.

Vinraith · Oct 11, 2007, 07:47 PM // 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaCktiX

Persistence: If anyone read the "Ultimate Guild Wars Guide," they got treated to two of the finest pieces of RPG lore I've ever read (aside from Tolkien material). Assaulting the dragons will require more than 8 people. Heck, it'll require an entire mass of people, working together to break through the fortress and by sheer force of will killing the dragon. That was a big disappointment in Nightfall and GW:EN for me: it only took 8 people to take down a god and a "Great Destroyer." Kinda nerfs the thrill.

You know what nerfs the thrill for me? Not being able to play an area of the game because I prefer playing with a small group of friends rather than a huge mass of idiots.

If the game can't be played solo/small group (and I mean ALL of the game) it's not worth my money.

Bargamer · Oct 11, 2007, 07:53 PM // 19:53

I love the GW series too, in that I've played how I wanted to play, for as long as I darn well wanted to. Ever since Factions, I kept to one build, my Minion Bomber, 90% of the time. GW:EN changed that. For once, I was challenged enough to get a PUG and slot Spirit Spam or Resto Rit. (Mostly because of no corpses or too much AOE.)

I don't want to smirk or sound like I'm calling people out, but perception is a big part of this game. Ever since Factions, the Rit/N has not been nerfed YET. People continue to think that Necros are greater than Rits. It bothers me slightly, but not as much as other builds who have felt the effects of PVP on PVE play. I fear for when the Rit finally does, because it would be the end of my 'splodey ways. But more on PVP/PVE.

Even in RL, there is a separation in PVE vs PVP. I agree with Lyra Song's and Tacktix's post, there needs to be a separation. We can take inspiration from RL, like the current American war on the Middle East. The best way would be if PVP had some sort of large effect on the economy/trading, and minor, if at all, on skill balance. That way, those who want to PVP, farm/grind, and have lots and lots of money, can directly influence what they love to do best, and let the rest of the us in PVE go, "So, I heard in the paper, that we won some battles on the Asuran Front... BTW, crystal prices are down, and turtle meat is way up." "I guess we're having Sylvari dishes for a while." And that would be the end of it.

On the subject of economy, one area in which I had a higher tolerance of grinding was Crafting. And I don't mean LOTR Online crafting, either. (Farm for ingredients, buy cross-crafting in other ingredients, farm for recipes, farm for crafting XP, and while you're out in the world, find some customers who want your sub-par products. Sorry, you're max crafting? You still are not as good as Raid drops. GG.) I'm talking about Pre-Burning Crusade WoW crafting. Most of the reason why that economy was balanced and thrived because it has a robust, REASONABLE Auction House. Basic materials were pie to get, and yet it was still profitable to sell/use for your own purposes. You didn't HAVE to fight off level 1 Asian farmers for anything, because it was so plentiful, and every recipe had variety of what it required. And EVERYTHING WAS USEFUL, to SOMEBODY. LOTRO failed in that. 99% of the crafted items were useless, and the remaining 1% were obsolete one quest reward later. Burning Crusade failed, in that it completely ignored those who wanted to stay with the previous game, hemogenized several crafting branches together, increased demand for ore, and didn't increase the supply. Every day, my Friends List shrank. Every transaction, I lost money.

I used to be called Thundermourn the Troll Warrior, Master Swordsmith. Do you know what a Crafter with no customers is called? Channel Spammer. I have since canceled my subscription to both those games, and swore never to play them again. Don't make me do the same with GW, I'm begging you.

Extending my earlier point of gaming mimicing RL, what if PVP was the driving force behind Crafting? It used to be, people went to war for gold, glory, and religion. After the soldiers were done, the explorers(religion), researchers(glory), and crafters(gold) came in, usually in that order. Can we have that in GW2?

Ok, enough ranting: One of the most fun and random things about Diablo 2 was that no 2 runs were the same: The dungeon randomized itself, yet you were sure to meet the same bosses, SOMEWHERE. I realize that would be impossible to do with GW2, it was just an idea.

Also, what does UAX mean?

Edit: Word, Vin! I was of like mind for LOTR and WoW, too.

Winterclaw · Oct 11, 2007, 07:57 PM // 19:57

UAX = Unlocked Everything

What I want to know is what does this depeer options for character development mean. Does it mean that our characters are going to be race-based and can switch primaries (like FFXI)? Does it mean there will finally be hair stylists?

Perth68 · Oct 11, 2007, 08:02 PM // 20:02

Increasing the level cap while preserving skill based, open, and hassle free gaming sounds really difficult as they seem opposed to each other. I'm convinced the best way to achieve those ideals is a low level cap and that any other system will be worse off. It seems ANet thinks they can pull it off and I'm interested to see what they come up with.

Things like persistence, more movement options, UAX, the changed skill system, and just all around enhancements sound great.It's also nice to see all of this in writing (particularly the core ideas of GW).

I can't wait to play GW2 as well.

Drake Aran · Oct 11, 2007, 08:13 PM // 20:13

I'm positive about this game. Sure it won't be a perfect game, but GW1 isn't perfect either. I'm in doubt about non-instanced areas, but I truly hope they'll manage to implement it properly. No level caps?! Jeez...isn't it against the "GW philosophy"? Well, obviously it depends on which benefits will be gained at each level, but I'm not fully convinced. Anyway, I "trust" Arenanet and, as I said, I'm positive about the game! Keep up the good work!

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 11, 2007, 08:22 PM // 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunderai

I actually like the 2D limitation on movement, I dont see how making it 3D adds any value to the game. But thats me.

People may disagree with me here, but I like games that take it one step further... to isometric. I love that perspective. Nox, Diablo, Diablo 2, Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2...

Mordakai · Oct 11, 2007, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

People may disagree with me here, but I like games that take it one step further... to isometric. I love that perspective. Nox, Diablo, Diablo 2, Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2...

I disagree.

Although with our Heros, such a view option would not be bad.

I think in Guild Wars 2, without heros or henchies, it will be much easier to manage You, your optional companion, and any pet. (And yes, Anet says the game will still be "soloable" for those who like playing that way).

UAX = Unlock All "X", in this case meaning all skills, mods, armor, etc. for PvP.

People who want limits on unlocks ask for UAS (unlock all skills).

TaCktiX · Oct 11, 2007, 08:38 PM // 20:38

In response to the people who like the mythos of killing off a god and the like, my feeling about big huge battles against a truly titanic foe is motivated by the fact that in Factions, Nightfall, and GW:EN, the mission BEFORE the final boss was harder. It's sad that killing Shiro's corrupted lackeys is harder than killing him, that Shiro and the Lich pose more of a challenge than the dark god of secrets, and that killing off mob after mob of Destroyers, especially in the Central Transfer Chamber (Disc of Chaos anyone?), was tougher than killing the Great Destroyer. I want the final battle to be truly climactic and difficult, not some wimpy epilogue to your greater achievements beforehand.

Also consider that keeping the 8 player paradigm at all times may sound cool, but it limits how much ArenaNet can do with maps. If that player cap is raised for some uber-instance like Assaulting Primordius' Stronghold, then the very WoW-ian (and really, the only reason I'd ever be interested in that game ever) Guild Raid becomes possible. It also allows less experienced players to come along in a group without killing the group's ability to succeed (c'mon, who's had that one idiot who aggroed every mob possible?). Knowing ArenaNet, they'll come up with some crazily elegant solution.

dread pirate fargus · Oct 11, 2007, 08:44 PM // 20:44

i enjoyed every minute of reading that. exactly the kind of spirit i would expect from James.

to all the whiners aroung here moaning about grind, there is no COMPULSORY grind in guild wars. sure there are titles and pve skills, but you do not need to grind them to finish and enjoy the game. they adress the need of hardcore gamers by allowing them to progress further than the basic storyline, and get fancypants titles + slightly better pve skills (which again arent needed, they are just a sexy bonus on the side)

nobody is MAKING you grind titles, armour, etc. one of the best things about GW is the fact that you dont need FoW armour to compete evenly, it has no benefit whatever apart from an aesthetic bonus to people who want more from the game. it is entirely possible to play once a month for 2 hours and still perform well and get great enjoyment from the game.

the thing about level caps is, from what i understand the increased level cap will be no different to a level 20 cap, apart from aesthetic. so once you get to level 20 you stop gaining health, attribute points, etc, and just get skill points, however your level reflects the total number of skill points gained. so the only difference is you will be able to differentiate between the level 20 who has 140,000xp and the level 100+ who has 1.4Mil xp, but the level 20 will be exactly on par with the lvl 100 thing.

its just the same as FoW armour compared to 1k droks armour. one is prettier, but just as well equipped.

i love the fact that there is a little bit of grind for when i have finished all campaigns, there is something to tide me over until new content is added. without character progression, i (and most other players) would finish the storyline, run out of things to do and go play WoW until the next expansion comes out.

there really is no guarantee, but i think (imho) that i am at least partially representative of what many players think.... the kind that doesnt spend hours on fansites moaning and whining about how imba something is.

a loyal and enthusiastic GW player,
James.

Muspellsheimr · Oct 11, 2007, 09:58 PM // 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

For GW2, i would like these ideas to integrate the two playstyles further:
-elimination of the PvP-only character
-enough player slots to play all primary classes
-UAX while in a PvP area
-Max armor while in a PvP area
-All players instantly at Level cap while in a PvP area
-max weaponry in a PvP
-Essentially, the PvE character turns into the PvP-only character's behavior in a PvP area. Players would also be able to access "tiers" of PvP, based on their on accomplishments.
in addition:
-I really liked in Prophecies how there are multiple arenas scattered for different character levels, 1-10,11-15,15-20. Perhaps adding more PvP-quests throughout the storyline, based on an AB style or Aspenwood/Quarry style formula, as well as simple PvP quests (indirect competition perhaps). Of course these would be Non-primary quests....
-Relevance for PvP in the PvE world to exist. Really. However these relevance should not hinder casual NON-PVPers from doing anything. This implies PvP effects that are positive when its there, but you can live without.
-Intelligent Monster behavior and builds that are GOOD
-Map design that leads to more than just C+Space tactics
In terms of PvP itself:
-ELO ranking system based on win/loss percentage in ranked matches and divided into player performance (defensive rank, offensive rank)
-Multiple tier pvp
-party rank based on average player rank

I like this concept. Now lets just hope ArenaNet takes a look at this, and effectively implements something along these lines, along with a point-based creation/advancement system.

Cobalt · Oct 11, 2007, 10:54 PM // 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaCktiX
Persistence: If anyone read the "Ultimate Guild Wars Guide," they got treated to two of the finest pieces of RPG lore I've ever read (aside from Tolkien material). Assaulting the dragons will require more than 8 people. Heck, it'll require an entire mass of people, working together to break through the fortress and by sheer force of will killing the dragon. That was a big disappointment in Nightfall and GW:EN for me: it only took 8 people to take down a god and a "Great Destroyer." Kinda nerfs the thrill.

Oh good grief it is going to be Guild Wars version of WoW raid's!

I hated doing raids in WoW, the chances of you getting a good boss drop was about as close to zero as you can get and it inspired so much greed, jealousy ,infighting, favoritism, and hard feelings and what not that it was never ever worth it.