Curse

quickmonty · Jan 16, 2008, 07:02 PM // 19:02

The "good olde days" ...... hanging around in town for hours spamming "GLF ..........."

Sounds like it will be a lot of fun in GW2 also.

The Great Al · Jan 16, 2008, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

The problem is that, without the party dynamic to make it different, they have to compete (in my mind anyway) with Morrowind, Oblivion, Diablo etc. GW is a great game because it's different from any other action RPG I've played. The more they make it like other games I adore, the more flawed it looks, simply because it's trying to do what they do only not as well. To my mind, what makes GW unique is:

1. Instancing across the entire game
2. Hero/Henchmen dynamic
3. The Skill system
4. A low level cap with the bulk of the game set beyond max level

Lose any of those things and it becomes more like the other games in the genre, and consequently easier to dismiss in favor of something else. They're removing at least the first two, as well as four, and altering three in a way that doesn't sound at all good to me. That spells "run of the mill MMORPG" to me, a genre I don't play and a mediocre one at that.

Those 4 things are also probably the four things keeping this game from being the WoW killer, and also the things that make the game have no replay value

Master Knightfall · Jan 16, 2008, 07:48 PM // 19:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Al

I'd also rather not have an emphasis on H/H. I'd get rid of heroes entirely, and just have henchmen. That way, if towns are empty, or people can't find a party for a specific quest, they can use henchmen, but if people are able and willing, they should be looking towards using humans first. It's ridiculous how elitist the people here are. Yes, there's a lot of bad PUGs, but there's a lot of good ones, too.

The bad ones far outweigh the good ones, too many children 13 and under playing. So, your idea is bad. If this were a pay to play type game I would agree with you, but, since it's no monthly fee you have 100's of thousands of rug rats and IGMO's running around in the game not knowing or not caring what to do. Mommy sets her 8 year old in front of the screen, hands him/her the mouse and tells them to just have fun. lol

So, nope, enforced grouping of any type would be bad for this type game. Soloing should always be top priority and let the multiplayers find each other.

Mordakai · Jan 16, 2008, 07:56 PM // 19:56

1. Instancing: Hurts GW b/c the world will always be the same everytime you enter an instance. One of my favorite things about WoW is I never know who I'll see running around when I log on.

2. Heroes / Henchies: Honestly, it's all about how it's implemented. If we can have a companion that will rez and heal us, and the game is "soloable" then I don't really see a technical difference between playing the game with one AI companion or 7 AI hero/henchmen.

3. The Skill system. Can someone explain how the skills are changing for sure? Because we really don't know anything yet.

4. No / High Level cap: Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all anymore. It makes no difference if you're playing the game and leveling up, or playing the game and NOT leveling. The gameplay is essentially the same: Find mobs and defeat them.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: I'd much prefer a true higher- leveling system, than the pseudo-leveling system Anet tacked on to Guild Wars with skills tied to Title Tracks. One of the worst ideas ever, and I hope that there will be no skills tied to Titles in GW2. If character skills are going to be better the more you grind, then take away the grind, and just have skills be advanced by playing; ie, LEVELING.

lyra_song · Jan 16, 2008, 08:01 PM // 20:01

the problem is evident from this thread alone of the two player types here.

The solo-ers and the multi-players.

One demanding more attention than the other.

The game is supposed to appeal to both. But because of this, either side can't fully enjoy their playing style.

Leaning one way will isolate the other.

*shrug*

PERSONALLY....I dislike making the game solo-able.

It makes it "stupid". Meaning you can't implement level design and quest designs that require multiple players. You can't have tactics that require smart, on the fly type decision making from multiple fronts.

This forces linearity and dumbs down mission designs.

tmr819 · Jan 16, 2008, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

the problem is evident from this thread alone of the two player types here.

The solo-ers and the multi-players.

But it's not that simple, really. While I am primarily a solo player, I also like grouping. GW offers both. You have a whole range of options to choose from for missions, quests, and dungeons ranging from solo-plus-AI to full eight-player groups. In GW, I can play with one or two of my kids right through a mission or dungeon. What other MORPG offers that kind of flexibility for its instance content? I think it's pretty awesome.

Quote:

The game is supposed to appeal to both. But because of this, either side can't fully enjoy their playing style.

I can't speak for you more multiplayer-oriented types, but I have definitely "fully enjoyed" my playing style in GW1.

Quote:

PERSONALLY....I dislike making the game solo-able.

It makes it "stupid". Meaning you can't implement level design and quest designs that require multiple players. You can't have tactics that require smart, on the fly type decision making from multiple fronts.

This forces linearity and dumbs down mission designs.

WoW does exactly what you are speaking of, meaning that the group content in WoW virtually requires individual players acting individually or you will fail. A single-player Warrior in WoW, for example, would never be able to negotiate a WoW dungeon with four "WoW-type Heroes," so the point you are making here is a really good one.

There may be no middle ground, as you suggest, and perhaps the answer is just the development of entirely separate games. Even so, I'd say GW1 came closer than any MMO I've come across to pleasing most types of players.

Personally, I find GW1 challenging enough even though it is "dumbed down" as you say, compared to instances specifically designed for real players all performing independently. For that kind of experience, however, there are scads of other MMOs to choose from. For the solo/small group-oriented players, we just have ... Guild Wars and Guild Wars.

One compromise might be to offer Elite Dungeons in GW2 that can only be completed by groups of real players in much the same way you have FoW and the Underworld now. Or perhaps a whole region of GW2 that was player group-only. Personally, I'd rather not have that kind of thing, for obvious reasons, but I wouldn't object to it either.

Vinraith · Jan 16, 2008, 08:33 PM // 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Al

Those 4 things are also probably the four things keeping this game from being the WoW killer, and also the things that make the game have no replay value

No, those four things are what's keeping it from being a low grade run-of-the-mill MMOG. You can't compete with WoW by becoming a WoW clone. Those 4 things are the reason I play Guild Wars, they're the reason I won't bother with GW2, and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone.

Master Knightfall · Jan 16, 2008, 08:53 PM // 20:53

Quote:

2. Heroes / Henchies: Honestly, it's all about how it's implemented. If we can have a companion that will rez and heal us, and the game is "soloable" then I don't really see a technical difference between playing the game with one AI companion or 7 AI hero/henchmen.

Well for me it's the fact that it represents an entire group and you have to work around and play to ALL their skills and not just your own or a handful. I like how the hero/henchie party can be as unique as your imaginatioin and not just cookie cutter like just having one companion will become. I like being able to CONTROL my heroes and henchies as well. At least spreading out the heroes and holding the henchies in the rear as reinforcements and not having party wipes like one gets with the majority of PUGS.

Quote:

I'd much prefer a true higher- leveling system, than the pseudo-leveling system Anet tacked on to Guild Wars with skills tied to Title Tracks. One of the worst ideas ever,

Sorry, disagree with you again. I like the pseudo leveling system and greatly enjoy the skill grinding to obtain more advantageous skills for pve. It gives me something else to do besides just farm for gold to get some silly vanity item. I'm one who plays for power and the skill of using that power to overcome the pve game as easily as I can. So, the faction based skill grind is great and I'm pretty sure we will see it in GW2 because the last two releases, especailly GWEN are just an insight to GW2. GW2 isn't going to change THAT much from GW1, I believe the main reason for GW2 is to finally SEPARATE PVE from PVP as there are just too many issues after a skill change to warrant continuing GW1 the way it is now. Once separated GW2 will shine as there won't be the major overhaul of loved and enjoyed skills and their use like there is now because of the PVP portion of GW1.

Quote:

PERSONALLY....I dislike making the game solo-able.

It makes it "stupid". Meaning you can't implement level design and quest designs that require multiple players. You can't have tactics that require smart, on the fly type decision making from multiple fronts.

This forces linearity and dumbs down mission designs.

Actually they could and wouldn't have to dumb down anything if they used the design philosophy of LDON of Everquest. The dungeon instance you entered was based on your party strength. You could go in with as few as 3 in a group or as many as 6 or 8 (forget been so long since I played EQ). But, the point being the instance created was for your specific party and types of players in that party. You also, before you started the mission could pick normal, easy or hard, thus giving even more selections as to the difficulty of the instance instead of it being one way or no way. I also liked the way the missions were setup and not just a romp thru a zone like GWs is. You actually had objectives you had to accomplish in oh 90 minutes I believe they were. Thus, you were not only up against the difficulty, but, also time. Great expansion one of the best I ever played. I just always wished it were soloable. Also, the mobs weren't in the same spot or same rooms everytime you played that same instance. That's another thing about GW is you can just map out everything and it's always the same everytime you go through one of their instances. Needs to be more random and unknowing everytime you enter one of them. This could stop solo farming as well, because one instance of the same area might not have disenchanters and the next time you went in it would. Keep the world ever changing and evolving and that will be the greatest mmo/mmorpg ever made.

Mordakai · Jan 16, 2008, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

No, those four things are what's keeping it from being a low grade run-of-the-mill MMOG. You can't compete with WoW by becoming a WoW clone. Those 4 things are the reason I play Guild Wars, they're the reason I won't bother with GW2, and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone.

Well, I think you're in the minority.

The level cap in particular has been a huge roadblock that has kept GW from being as successful as it could be: for better or worse, people like to see their character keep advancing. Even the current GW has implemented pseudo-leveling with Title grind, see my above post for details.

I've been playing WoW solo for 2 weeks now... no problem with Persistant areas. In fact, getting random help from people, even a spell boost, has been quite nice. Yes, their are jerks who play WoW, but you can ignore them, and the benefits of peristant areas outweigh the cons IMO.

Honestly, by GW2 keeping the PvP part separate from PvE will probably help the most (most annoying thing about WoW: random people challenging you to a duel!).

Bryant Again · Jan 16, 2008, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

The problem is that, without the party dynamic to make it different, they have to compete (in my mind anyway) with Morrowind, Oblivion, Diablo etc. GW is a great game because it's different from any other action RPG I've played. The more they make it like other games I adore, the more flawed it looks, simply because it's trying to do what they do only not as well. To my mind, what makes GW unique is:

1. Instancing across the entire game
2. Hero/Henchmen dynamic
3. The Skill system
4. A low level cap with the bulk of the game set beyond max level

Lose any of those things and it becomes more like the other games in the genre, and consequently easier to dismiss in favor of something else. They're removing at least the first two, as well as four, and altering three in a way that doesn't sound at all good to me. That spells "run of the mill MMORPG" to me, a genre I don't play and a mediocre one at that.

Instancing is cool on some levels but disappointing in others. While it's cool that you had your own world to farm, I consider it massively cooler to see someone in trouble with a monster and rush in and help save them. This is just one of the many cool and random interactions that you can't substitute in an entirely instanced game.

I don't see too well how the hero/hench system is revolutionary or unique. We've had singleplayer party based games that've been doing that for awhile.

The skill system is pretty cool, but also a bit limiting. You can only do so much with this 8-skills, and while that was the point there wasn't really much different to do: Run up to enemy, hit skill, use spell, repeat. That's why I'm really looking forward to GW2's skill system. If they can really pull it off, it could make that one skill feel like four different skills, depending on how you use them.

Can't really comment too much on the level cap, since I'm a bit more biased in that section more than others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

Sorry, disagree with you again. I like the pseudo leveling system and greatly enjoy the skill grinding to obtain more advantageous skills for pve.

The thing is is that there's really no difference. In GW1 with the title ranks, you are essentially leveling up your character. It just doesn't show the way we're used to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

most annoying thing about WoW: random people challenging you to a duel!

You won't have much trouble with duels since you're working on a Warlock and Hunter : )

Master Knightfall · Jan 16, 2008, 09:20 PM // 21:20

Quote:

The thing is is that there's really no difference. In GW1 with the title ranks, you are essentially leveling up your character. It just doesn't show the way we're used to.

Yes in essence that's how I see it as well to an extent. You can play the game without the extra pve only skills, but, if you levelup in them you are that much more powerful than the next person and more likely to get in a group for some harder tougher missions than those that don't levelup in those pve only skills. I think right now if you don't have URSAN's Blessing you won't get in many higher difficulty areas. I do think Ursans Blessing needs to be nerfed down a bit so we can get back to the holy trinity of things.

Of course there will be a mountain of people who would disagree with me because they can now get into groups with their characters they otherwise couldn't have before UB.

This is the part of GWs I'm not liking is the romper rooming of the entire game just about now. You can get almost any weapon now out of the Zashiens chest and thus things that were rare and had value are becoming valueless and only a handful of items are still rare anymore. I don't like this part of the game change as it begins to make it too socialistic and nullifies capitalism. We as Americans love our capitalism.

There's just not enough room at the top of a Pyramid for "everyone", and I don't think these online worlds should try to put everyone up there.

Aera Lure · Jan 16, 2008, 09:26 PM // 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarkii

But...the availability of H/H makes people NOT group, and in turn makes Guild Wars PvE basically a single player game with an online marketplace. That model does work to a good extent. After all, making a one-time payment for Nightfall and playing the campaign with H/H wasn't so much different than playing, say, Neverwinter Nights 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarkii

Solo play isn't necessarily H/H. In an "open" world, you can easily make solo quests, solo missions. I would prefer to see all 'hard' content only possible through grouping with other players.

I especially agree with the above quotes..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarkii

I'll buy GW2 regardless of whether its excellent or terrible, so that isn't the question.

But not with this. I plan on being a little cautious about it, waiting to decide on whether or not I get it until I learn more about it. Looking forward to learning more about it though, I'll say that much.

Master Knightfall · Jan 16, 2008, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Quote:

I would prefer to see all 'hard' content only possible through grouping with other players.

Nope, not me. I paid for the whole game therefore I should be able to experience the whole game without grouping with others if I so "choose". That's the important thing that it is something everyone gets to choose. I think it's sort of funny that multiplayers are finding out most people would rather play solo than group up with them. It is another reason GWs is so famous is because everyone has that choice and I do not see Anet taking that away from them. Though there are a few areas heroes and henchies aren't allowed and that's ok at least ALL the hard areas don't restrict the heroes and/or henchies. Like The Tombs I can take all of them in there and I get my fair share of ectoes and neat UWlike drops out of the chests in there. It's not so much the area as the being able to get the same loot that is in other areas not accessible to heros/henchies. To make ALL hard areas only accessible to human groups would be a very bad idea, very bad indeed.

Sirius-NZ · Jan 16, 2008, 09:39 PM // 21:39

It'd work well enough to make the rewards bigger (probably not just linearly either) if you had more people in the group. Since that's the way GW2 seems to be looking at it.

Truth be told, the heroes + henchmen system from GW1 is an interesting novelty, but I wouldn't be too sad if they do end up dropping it. I prefer to be able to focus on my own character anyway, rather than having to play a big strategy game here. From the sound of it, where GW1 is the RTS of RPGs, GW2 will be the fighting game (a la Street Fighter, or Soul Calibur) - and I don't mind that at all. Just as long as it has enough in it to prevent eventual boredom setting in (world PvP is a great start).

Master Knightfall · Jan 16, 2008, 10:11 PM // 22:11

No absolutely not world PVP. That is what ruined Ultimate Online was it's world pvp (notice how they got rid of it). PVP is something that should always be by choice and on choice servers or restricted areas. Never world pvp though where people have no choice if they want to participate. Shadowbane tried the world PVP mode and look what happened to it. It has less than 15,000 participants and is also free to play online now.

aspectacle · Jan 17, 2008, 01:06 AM // 01:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

No absolutely not world PVP. That is what ruined Ultimate Online was it's world pvp (notice how they got rid of it). PVP is something that should always be by choice and on choice servers or restricted areas. Never world pvp though where people have no choice if they want to participate. Shadowbane tried the world PVP mode and look what happened to it. It has less than 15,000 participants and is also free to play online now.

World PvP has a different definition for Guild Wars 2. Try reading this http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_PvP. World PvP is entirely voluntary.