Curse

sindex · Dec 17, 2007, 12:13 AM // 00:13

I think I rather wait until some of the key features have been clearly defined, before I really get interested in GW 2 (not to mention some screenshots). Many of these concepts can easily be changed in these stages of production. My guess is some “new” info will be released around the time of the next E3 conference.

Whirlwind · Dec 17, 2007, 12:42 AM // 00:42

The fact that they said they want to make gw2 so good that people will forget about gw1 and move on pretty much does it for me. Not to mention the fact i can barely log in to gw1 anymore its getting really worn out. I log in to work on stuff for my HoM thats about it... for gw2

Mac Sidewinder · Dec 17, 2007, 01:08 AM // 01:08

Other persistant world MMOs handle the amount of people online at the same time by having to have seperate clusters of servers. Meaning that if you are on one cluster you can't interact with someone on another cluster. This keeps too many people from being in one place at the same time.

Lord of the Rings Online (in beta) only had 3 servers so in the persistant world you literally lined up to do quests. It was funny and sad at the same time. People standing in line to kill the boss and when the boss respawned it was the next person's turn.

I'm interested on how they are going to solve this type of problem, if they are going to have the possibility of everyone being in the same persistant world at the same time. Either the maps are going to have to get ALOT larger or people are going to be standing on each other's heads.

Or maybe most of the persistant world will be in the form of PvP and most of the instanced part will be primarily Pve.

Winterclaw · Dec 17, 2007, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Quote:

If I am a low level character, I could help protect a trade route. If I am a high level player, I could try to take a key fortress.

Thank you anet for not making GW2 sound any less horrid than it is already shaping up to be. And I'm so glad ganking will be added to GW2. Now all we need is making the sequal equipment based. You know, because it sucks that if you are the same level as the other guy and have the more expensive item and you don't have an edge in combat.

Quote:

So the Hall tracks the Titles that you’ve done, the Campaigns you’ve completed, the Heroes you’ve collected, the Mini Pets you’ve gotten. Your high-end armor and overpriced, ugly, gwen-only weapons instead of the ones you've actually been using for a few years and like.

Fixed it for them.

Balan Makki · Dec 17, 2007, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Thank you anet for not making GW2 sound any less horrid than it is already shaping up to be. And I'm so glad ganking will be added to GW2. Now all we need is making the sequal equipment based. You know, because it sucks that if you are the same level as the other guy and have the more expensive item and you don't have an edge in combat.

This is an old article, and I suspect that they'll not be taking two steps backward as you fear. At least that's what I gather from more recent info and comments.

I personally hope they do away with levels completely.

Operative 14 · Dec 17, 2007, 04:08 AM // 04:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Sidewinder

Other persistant world MMOs handle the amount of people online at the same time by having to have seperate clusters of servers. Meaning that if you are on one cluster you can't interact with someone on another cluster. This keeps too many people from being in one place at the same time.

Lord of the Rings Online (in beta) only had 3 servers so in the persistant world you literally lined up to do quests. It was funny and sad at the same time. People standing in line to kill the boss and when the boss respawned it was the next person's turn.

I'm interested on how they are going to solve this type of problem, if they are going to have the possibility of everyone being in the same persistant world at the same time. Either the maps are going to have to get ALOT larger or people are going to be standing on each other's heads.

Or maybe most of the persistant world will be in the form of PvP and most of the instanced part will be primarily Pve.

That was one of the things I was thinking of. I suppose one thought along that line is that each instanced, yet persistant, area could only hold the same number of people that are currently in the towns. So instead of having 1000 different instances for 1000 different parties, they only have maybe 4 instances with 250 people each. Then you might also be able to please the instancing crowd by giving the option of going to their own private instance, or let the fans of a persistant world go to one of the persistant 'districts.'

Bryant Again · Dec 17, 2007, 05:06 AM // 05:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Sidewinder

I'm interested on how they are going to solve this type of problem, if they are going to have the possibility of everyone being in the same persistant world at the same time. Either the maps are going to have to get ALOT larger or people are going to be standing on each other's heads.

They could probably make it so when you go for a quest, it becomes instanced. They have a lot of those already with GW:EN.

Nevin · Dec 17, 2007, 06:32 AM // 06:32

It always excites me to hear about a new interview, then my hopes are let down when I realize its not really about new content. God damn these filler press conferences!

Redfeather1975 · Dec 17, 2007, 08:38 AM // 08:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

They could probably make it so when you go for a quest, it becomes instanced. They have a lot of those already with GW:EN.

I'd like it that way. Then in quests you could still have named npcs that follow you, objects you can carry and all that jazz.

Abnaxus · Dec 17, 2007, 11:26 AM // 11:26

Edit - moved

Bryant Again · Dec 17, 2007, 05:33 PM // 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

I'd like it that way. Then in quests you could still have named npcs that follow you, objects you can carry and all that jazz.

I doth agree, that was one of the coolest things about the quests in GW: Because of the 100% instanced explorable areas, they could make some pretty cool and immersive quests.

tmr819 · Dec 17, 2007, 05:59 PM // 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saraphim

I know I'm probably in a minority, but I like persistent play. If I'm bimbling around in WoW and see someone struggling I can heal them or jump in and give them a hand. I almost always get a thank you or /salute emote, even from some of the alliance players if I've helped them bring something down. I never attack first, but if they've already hit I'll jump in if I think they can use the help - can't heal or communicate properly because alliance language shows up as gibberish in the chat window.

I can agree with you in part. Persistence has its positive aspects. I have played WoW extensively and know what you mean about the random positive player-player interactions. However, "kill stealing", "boss camping", "resource competition", "class discrimination" and a host of other such problems are also inherent in a game like WoW. No one ever takes your kill in GW1, you never have to camp a boss waiting for a respawn, no one competes with you for materials, chests, whatever (GW1 does not have crafting per se, but I imagine GW2 will...), "unpopular classes" can always find a group (with heroes/henches if nothing else), if you feel like soloing you can do most everything in GW1 -- but NOT in most MMOs, etc., etc.

WoW has a lot of nice features, but GW1 is far superior, imho. My hope is that GW2 will incorporate the good stuff from WoW (such as an Auction House, for example) and other MMOs of that ilk, while keeping what's distinctive and good about GW1. What I have heard thus far, however, has not been particularly encouraging.

That said, I still think any MMO that inherits even a little of the GW1 style is going to be worth playing. GW1 has been so good and so much better that even if GW2 isn't as good as GW1 it will still be much better, I am confident, than most everything else out there.

Now, if GW2 offered players a choice of playing in instanced ("classic GW") or noninstanced (persistent) servers, that would really be groundbreaking. Obviously, I would choose the instanced version in a heartbeat.

Kityn · Dec 17, 2007, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I can agree with you in part. Persistence has its positive aspects. I have played WoW extensively and know what you mean about the random positive player-player interactions. However, "kill stealing", "boss camping", "resource competition", "class discrimination" and a host of other such problems are also inherent in a game like WoW. No one ever takes your kill in GW1, you never have to camp a boss waiting for a respawn, no one competes with you for materials, chests, whatever (GW1 does not have crafting per se, but I imagine GW2 will...), "unpopular classes" can always find a group (with heroes/henches if nothing else), if you feel like soloing you can do most everything in GW1 -- but NOT in most MMOs, etc., etc.

Actually all of the above have been answered in previous interviews. Persistant areas will have dynamic quest strings that players can choose to participate or not.
Boss camping, loot stealing, kill stealing ect ect will not happen in GW2, because the areas that have such will be instanced.
Also has been stated in previous interviews that GW2 can be soloable. You choose wether or not to group.

My opinion for the high or no level cap. I see it as a built in Hard Mode. Higher the level you are and the more players in your party the more difficult the instanced area will become. This seems to be the only logical choice. How else could the same game be soloable and beable to handle large number of players at high levels?

Hookecho · Dec 17, 2007, 08:03 PM // 20:03

sounds a lot like another NCsoft entity....City of Heroes/Villians. Persistent zones and instanced maps/areas. Also sounds like they are taking a page from the CoH/V games when it comes to levels on a team. In CoH/V you can sidekick some up to one level below you and the mobs tend to con (con = level in CoH lingo) to the team leader or to the highest lvl on the team. In order to get xp and drops etc...you must be within 5 (I think its 5) lvls of the highest toon in the party. Or.....if your a high lvl toon, you can exemplar down to 1 lvl below whoever Ex'd you. In this way mish-mashed team lvels can work out and everyone gets to have fun. The way the skills work in CoH/V is so completely different that I am sure they are not going to morph that model...in CoH/V you dont have anywhere near the amount of skills and and you slot them with enhancers and once that is done your pretty much locked into that skillset unless you earn a respec to remake/re-choose your skills and enhancers. I have alway liked GW's skill mechanics better (not the actual skill mechanics....but the way you can adjust or load on the fly in a town)

Anyway, sounds interesting....

heck I may have just described WoW...I dont know as I have never played that...but i do see a lot of CoH/V influence in what they are saying about GW2

Mac Sidewinder · Dec 18, 2007, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Instances automatically adjusting to the number and level of players is the way DAOC dungeons work. This actually works out really well. Allowing a single player or 8 players into the same instance and adjusts the difficulty level accordingly. Now that I would like to see in GW2.

Saraphim · Dec 18, 2007, 01:12 AM // 01:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I can agree with you in part. Persistence has its positive aspects. I have played WoW extensively and know what you mean about the random positive player-player interactions. However, "kill stealing", "boss camping", "resource competition", "class discrimination" and a host of other such problems are also inherent in a game like WoW. No one ever takes your kill in GW1, you never have to camp a boss waiting for a respawn, no one competes with you for materials, chests, whatever (GW1 does not have crafting per se, but I imagine GW2 will...), "unpopular classes" can always find a group (with heroes/henches if nothing else), if you feel like soloing you can do most everything in GW1 -- but NOT in most MMOs, etc., etc.

Quite true. Although I seem to have been reasonably lucky in my interactions with people, I agree with pretty much all of the above. Trying to finish a quest when there are 17 other people around can be a right royal pain in the ass, some of their Christmas quests are just mayhem at the moment, you can't move for lvl 70s and it's pointless trying them.

Quote:

WoW has a lot of nice features, but GW1 is far superior, imho. My hope is that GW2 will incorporate the good stuff from WoW (such as an Auction House, for example) and other MMOs of that ilk, while keeping what's distinctive and good about GW1. What I have heard thus far, however, has not been particularly encouraging.

Wouldn't argue with you there. I must admit that I'd find an AH in Guild Wars as it is now a little pointless as any and all crafting materials and armour can be sourced or purchased easily which just leaves weapons trading, which seems to be largely a vanity pursuit with collector items and weaponsmiths producing perfect stats for little outlay. Pointless to me, not to people who like to trade, obviously.

Quote:

Now, if GW2 offered players a choice of playing in instanced ("classic GW") or noninstanced (persistent) servers, that would really be groundbreaking. Obviously, I would choose the instanced version in a heartbeat.

I'd go both

And before I get called a WoW fangirl, although I enjoy it I still prefer GW. I wouldn't have been playing for so long if I didn't.

Servant of Kali · Dec 18, 2007, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Very nice interview. And yes, I like innovation.

Quote:

But the ultra competitive players do not want that, they want to immediately have access to everything, they want to win or lose entirely based on their playing skill.

Amen.

semantic · Dec 18, 2007, 04:25 AM // 04:25

One of the ways I think GW specifically can benefit from persistent combat areas is in the way certain classes are viewed. Classes may be very different in GW2, but imagine if there were persistent zones in GW1. A standard group of tank/nuke/heal might be having trouble dealing with some boss or group when along comes a helpful Mesmer who <<sound of trumpets>> saves the day (or at least helps out in an obvious way). Chances are the people in the tank/nuke/heal group still won't understand exactly how the Mes helped, but there's a decent chance they'll go away thinking "I don't know what happened, but as soon as that Mesmer showed up the Dragon folded like a tent."

The biggest reason classes like Mes don't get included in the fixed 8-man groups of today is the vast majority of players don't realize what they contribute. In a persistent area, Mesmers (or 'creative builds' in standard classes) don't have to get picked in order to show their worth. They can simply walk up and start dishing out the hurt. Then later, when people are forming groups for instances, some of them will think, "you know, what we really need here is someone to do whatever it was that Mesmer was doing".

To take that further, in a game whose strength lies in the complexity of the interactions between its many, many skills, open combat areas will give players much more freedom to showcase what they've learned to do with those skills, and others more opportunity to learn new tricks and create variations. This will significantly speed up the learning process for the playerbase as a whole. Now, dedicated players rely heavily on wiki and forums to expand and share their knowledge. In GW2, it should be easier to learn and innovate by playing.

sterbenx2 · Dec 18, 2007, 04:10 PM // 16:10

so AGAIN they try to "encourage" (force) RPers to play PvP! Even by Jeffs own comments he should know that these are two VERY different groups. grr

What I see happening is world when A vs B. A wins and all those FoTM PvPers head over to world A. As a result of this world A wins more often. Since world A is winning more, the RPers move over to world A because the world defense has benefits that RPers don't want to play PvP to maintain. What we end with is one world that dominates ALL worlds. RPers don't give a crap if the PvPers are winning because of wiki builds, they just want a world open to whatever they want to do. WTH?

Not saying this is etched in stone. Just from what I know of our community as it is and the statments made by our boys in the interview.

Mordakai · Dec 18, 2007, 08:51 PM // 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterbenx2

so AGAIN they try to "encourage" (force) RPers to play PvP! Even by Jeffs own comments he should know that these are two VERY different groups. grr

What I see happening is world when A vs B. A wins and all those FoTM PvPers head over to world A. As a result of this world A wins more often. Since world A is winning more, the RPers move over to world A because the world defense has benefits that RPers don't want to play PvP to maintain. What we end with is one world that dominates ALL worlds. RPers don't give a crap if the PvPers are winning because of wiki builds, they just want a world open to whatever they want to do. WTH?

Not saying this is etched in stone. Just from what I know of our community as it is and the statments made by our boys in the interview.

Without knowing how it will work it's hard to say, but I'm thinking that these World v World "PvP" events will be more fun than anything required.

But, yeah, I'm against any kind of "world reward" that punishes people who don't want to PvP.