Curse

Ninna · Jun 11, 2005, 04:36 AM // 04:36

from an interview
http://www.happypuppy.com/viewFrame....orial_id=24325

Quote:

ArenaNet Team: we have defined a "power curve" that flattens rapidly over time, characters do not become ever more powerful, but instead acquire a wider variety of skills and therefore a larger number of possible strategies as time goes on. Each individual strategy is no more powerful than another, so a high level character - even with many times the number of skills - is not strictly better than a lower level character with only a dozen skills; he just has more choices.

This means that even a player who is just starting out will have skills that can help the team. Furthermore, buddies who like to play together will be able to continue to adventure together over the long term, because even though one may have less time to play each week, he'll still have valuable strategies to contribute to the partnership over the long term.

To imagine how it works, think about playing Magic: The Gathering. In Magic, you might own hundreds of cards, but choose only a small number to use for each game. You choose those cards based on the strategy you plan to use in a specific encounter. So like Magic, when you play Guild Wars, you have to think about your skill options, consider which ones might be needed in a particular mission, and then take it a step further and consider what your teammates are bringing to the mix. From your character's inventory of several dozens of skills (chosen from the game's hundreds of skills), you'll select a small number of skills to take into that mission. And when the next mission rolls around, you may set yourself up with an entirely different group of skills.

Ardus Shadowmane · Jun 11, 2005, 05:10 AM // 05:10

Sorry, a self-mocking silly post turned into more than I bargained for, lol. I knew the comparison that was being made. This thread just popped a side-thought into my head about Wizards of the Coast being everywhere. I'll be quiet now. :P

Lord Malikai · Jun 11, 2005, 08:08 AM // 08:08

I played M:TG ranked tours and can say that GW has only the smallest bit of comparability with MTG. Very Basic. M:TG is so... expansive, the combos and counters are near endless. GW seems very limited to me in comparison of skill setup/deck building. If anything, all the skills in GW combined make up 1 block of MTG and there are about 20 different blocks now (I have not played in a few years now, not sure what block/expansion they are up to). But yes, the comparison is there, be it very little.

Racthoh · Jun 11, 2005, 08:12 AM // 08:12

Not quite sure I see the relation between this and Magic. Then again, I play Magic the old fashion way of actually using the cards and not the virtual version. Ditto for PnP games like DnD.

But I mean, in Magic you rely on your ability and your ability only. There is an endless number of different strategies that work in magic. In GW, get monks. Get several monks, spellcasters, maybe a warrior. I haven't played in the HoH for very long, but that is all the strategy I see being used.

Monks are a lot like lands/mana in Magic. If you don't have any, you will lose.

..shade!! · Jun 11, 2005, 08:40 AM // 08:40

I was a good ranked player of magic the gatering (in italy), and i think that this game is a MTG with 1 people intead of 1 deck...

The build of the pg is like a build of a deck, with many skills (card) and u have to choose 8 (60).
And u have to be skilled playing your character (deck), or u will lose against a more skilled player.

The major difference is that magic is 1v1 based, gw is 8v8 based.

complexiator · Jun 11, 2005, 09:11 AM // 09:11

A big difference between the 2 is that GW isnt turn-based. This is a feature that increases strategy bigtime. Just look at the biggest strategy game alltimes, chess which is turn-based.
MTG also beats GW becaus its just a fun social card-game(I hate the capitalistic trade system however) Somehow fun games are ruined by comercial thinking. And that is what MTG and GW have in common.

IceD'Bear · Jun 11, 2005, 09:25 AM // 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Malikai

If anything, all the skills in GW combined make up 1 block of MTG and there are about 20 different blocks now (I have not played in a few years now, not sure what block/expansion they are up to). But yes, the comparison is there, be it very little.

This is only the start of GW. Each expansion will bring new classes, new skills, new mechanics. Similar to MTG

Makkert · Jun 11, 2005, 11:51 AM // 11:51

So much to respond to...

first off, i've played over 8 years of Magic, and know the game pretty well imho. but probably a lot of posters in this thread also. just sketching my background.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nothernlights

Any other Magic players feel like their taking knowledge acquired from that game and applying it to dominate the PVP aspect of this one?

absolutely! the similarities are more then i could first imagine.
- a metagame that is constantly evolving, probably even more then magics one
- expansion driven
- energycurve (manacurve) and energymanagement are well known concepts
- selecting skills & selecting your cards
- elite skills & restricted cards

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompelius

rares and uniques (with fictional fantasy "values").

incorrect. the cards have real world value. One can sell cards at marketprice that is influenced by popularity, playability & legality and metagame. this is contrast with the skills in GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclair

MTG is a card game that takes an incredible amount of skill. There's a reason why top players like Kibler and Kai(spelling?) dominate the tournaments despite the fact that many other players run very similar decks or even nearly identical decks.

absolutely correct. Give two players the same set up, and they will perform differently. bad players blame it on 'bad shuffles'. GW bad players blame it on 'n00bs' while have chosen bad tactics themselves. The players you are referring to are Brian Kibler and Kai Budde.

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilb

Mesmers = Blue
Monks = White
Necromancers = Black
Elementalists = Red
ranger = multi color
warriors = green

you simply can NOT make this generalisation, altough i see what you are pointing at. Its a bit to shallow of a comparison. (I.e.: Elementist: the earth-line with its armor boosts would be more white flavored in magic.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardus Shadowmane

Sorry, I'm a PnP'er as well, who is jaded that Wizards of the Coast. took all of my favorite RPG's and turned them into the exact same game with different settings.

WotC has nothing to do with GW. that simple. the concept is losely based on magic, nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ea Zaku

Guild Wars is a lot more healthy than M:tG. There is no netdecking and there is more balance in GW (remember the huge hit to Blue that WotC and RnD decided to do?)
If GW were literally M:tG the RPG, then any Blue profession could simply say "No!" and all other PvP'ers would drop dead.

i'm going to do a wild guess: its been a while since you played mtg, is it?
while blue certainly was the leading powerhouse in magic, its days as a ruler in t2 are defenitively over. And it still is a strong color in t1, but others are catching up now WotC is watching the colorwheel more closely.
No netdecking in GW? you must be joking me. what do you call the buildsdirectory on this site then, and the countless builddiscussion topics here?
As for the healthy part:
ANet is more flexible, I can agree to taht. they are faster to patch issues. In magic, only once every 3 months fixes are applied. in GW, its weekly. So yes, i agree there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardus Shadowmane

Sorry guys, didn't mean to confuse anyone. I have nothing against M:tG (except for the 8 billion expansions that made me quit as I couldn't keep up).

and for this reason, a lot of players have fled to online play, where they are not forced to collect all cards before being able to play, but dl a patch and just go. This is my greatest fear for GW: having finally got most skills, a new sets comes out, and the grind starts over again. thus slowing the PvP metagame. The PvP crowd is complaining alot, but after some carefull observating, i must say they are absolutely right on most points. they are a bit forgotten in comparison to the PvE crowd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GW

Will I remain competitive if I do not buy the expansion packs? Will I be able to compete with and against others if I have only some of the Guild Wars chapters?

Yes. Purchasing the newer chapters of Guild Wars will not make you strictly more powerful. You will have access to many more strategic options, due to the expanding nature of the skills, abilities, items and professions that you enjoy with each chapter.

and this is bullshit offcourse. what do you thing 'more strategic options' will do for a competitive player? Will keep them at the same level as whitout the extra skills? offcourse one needs the skills in order to stay competitive, altough one can say that the more skills one has, the less impact the release of more skills has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”Lord Malikai”

M:TG is so... expansive, the combos and counters are near endless. GW seems very limited to me in comparison of skill setup/deck building. If anything, all the skills in GW combined make up 1 block of MTG and there are about 20 different blocks now (I have not played in a few years now, not sure what block/expansion they are up to). But yes, the comparison is there, be it very little.

You must take in comparison that magic is over 10 years old, and GW is only about a month. Magic in its early days didn’t have that much cards either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”Racthoh”

Monks are a lot like lands/mana in Magic. If you don't have any, you will lose.

interesting comparison… Well then you can attest another comparison: how many monks does one need? A defensive build will use many to slowly build some advantage over the other team, much like defensive decks in magic try to slow the opponent down so that they can perform their winning trick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shade

The major difference is that magic is 1v1 based, gw is 8v8 based.

magic can also be multiplayer 3v3 or more. but granted, magic primary design is probably 1v1. Altough the multiplayer side is slowly getting the attention that it deservers, as its official rules are close to release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ”complexior”

A big difference between the 2 is that GW isnt turn-based. This is a feature that increases strategy bigtime. Just look at the biggest strategy game alltimes, chess which is turn-based.
MTG also beats GW becaus its just a fun social card-game(I hate the capitalistic trade system however) Somehow fun games are ruined by comercial thinking. And that is what MTG and GW have in common.

yes, that is the main difference: GW is real time.
As for commercial thinking:
1) there is nothing wrong with it
2) GW is a one time buy, no fees for online gaming. Hardly comparable to the buying of booster packs, unless you mean the trade in unidentified armor.

Uzul · Jun 11, 2005, 12:16 PM // 12:16

the major diffrence is that magic is roundbased and this one is in realtime ^^
i still got my old magic-cards and sometimes my friends and i meet to play some matches - blue|white 4 all eternity...

if you need to transform gw into sth magical: maybe this...
8 independent but still dependent decks of 8 cards, chosen from a dualcolour deck - i love it

<-addicted since wpv

demonblade · Jun 11, 2005, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Wrath of God and Rout!

(too bad monks don't have these elites, or Plague Wind if anyone remember this giant!)
Guild Wars is definitely better than MTG, at least that's what I think; at least I won't run into land shortage again

!
I am building my char based off my most powerful deck: black and white for creature wiping and resurrecting (aka necro/monk). Worked for me in MTG, worked for me in gw. (In MTG Wrath of Gods and Terror work like charm, but in Guild Wars it takes a lot more skills to kill off massive mobs)

Ucilius Winkwalker · Jun 11, 2005, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Malikai

I played M:TG ranked tours and can say that GW has only the smallest bit of comparability with MTG. Very Basic. M:TG is so... expansive, the combos and counters are near endless. GW seems very limited to me in comparison of skill setup/deck building. If anything, all the skills in GW combined make up 1 block of MTG and there are about 20 different blocks now (I have not played in a few years now, not sure what block/expansion they are up to). But yes, the comparison is there, be it very little.

Agreed. There are similarities, but very very basic. There is no real card drawing mechanism (very important in M: TG), there is no alternate winning conditions (grinding deck in M:TG), can only have 1 rare at a time (as many rares as u can have in M:TG), no multiple copies of same skills (max 4 copies of same card in M:TG), no real color of mana management, no deck only hand (8 skills), no sideboard oppotunity given after each match unless you lose.

So in my opinion, even though Guild war might be a very innovative game among mmorpgs, M: TG is much more interesting game at the moment because of all the things you can do. If you are looking for a game that very closely simulate a card game, you should check out 'Phantom Dust' for Xbox, two thumbs up for it.

Ardus Shadowmane · Jun 11, 2005, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Ok, this is gonna be my last post in this thread. I've seemed to confuse people to the point where they think I think WotC had anything at all to do with GW. I don't. Reading this thread about Magic influencing GW reminded me of WotC, and that's all, so I decided to post a silly rant. The end.

Dreamsmith · Jun 11, 2005, 05:04 PM // 17:04

You could go on for ages listing the differences, all of which should be fairly obvious anyhow, since we're comparing a real-time computer game to a card game. Obviously there are huge differences.

What's more interesting are the similarities. Certain the similarities between GW and M:tG are huge compared to the similarities between Half-Life 2 and Poker, or StarCraft and Cribbage. Saying "they're not really that alike" and pointing out all the differences between card games and real-time computer games is a major, "Well duh."

Given that we are comparing a card game to a real-time computer game, the similarities between the two are relatively huge.

Personally, I've always thought of GW as the bastard love-child of Diablo II and Magic: the Gathering. It's like someone sat down and said, "We're going to make another real-time action RPG, ala Diablo, but we want to pull as many good ideas as we can out of M:tG, at least that would fit into an action RPG format."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Malikai

M:TG is so... expansive, the combos and counters are near endless. GW seems very limited to me in comparison of skill setup/deck building. If anything, all the skills in GW combined make up 1 block of MTG and there are about 20 different blocks now (I have not played in a few years now, not sure what block/expansion they are up to).

You're comparing M:tG after a gazillion expansions to GW before its first expansion. I believe GW at present has more skills and potential combos than M:tG did before its first expansion.

Greentongue · Jun 11, 2005, 07:32 PM // 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ardus Shadowmane

Half the reason I played pnp rpg's was for the diverse systems, and now it's gone.

Well take a look at the Savage Worlds and BESM systems.
You could make a Guild Wars PnP game from Savage Worlds with very little effort.

Back on topic:
With the time that M:tG has been around, it bodes well for GW to follow the concept.

Rieselle · Jun 11, 2005, 07:48 PM // 19:48

Incidentally, although it's likely that GW incorporates some ideas from M:tG, Magic is by no means the only place where this kind of idea can be found. (I'm sure we all know that, but...)

For those who also like console RPGs, you might be interested in checking out "Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne" and "Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga" on the PS2, a series of really excellent console RPGs. (They have been translated to english, and are available in the U.S.)

There are a lot of interesting gameplay features in these games, but I mention it because it too has a large skill set, and you have to carefully choose a small number of skills to equip on your characters, and try to make choices that work together etc.

theft · Jun 11, 2005, 07:50 PM // 19:50

lol, i hadn't really played MTG since the last Junior Nationals (3 years ago) down in Orlando... i think it was Tempest-Urzas Saga but im not 100% sure. Either way suicide black managed to get me in the top 20 vs a shitload of energy field+sly decks(i managed to forget the necro/yawgmoths*spelling* will decks).

I definately see the familiarities between GW and MTG, i tried to classify all the classes with a color like.. elem=red, ranger=green, monk=white, necro=black, mes=blue, then they just had to throw in warr IMO b/c its a staple to this genre of games. Artifacts, i'm not sure about though. I love competition though and the pvp in this game isnt exactly the normal 1v1 style of MTG but I certainly get my fix playin it

.

Anyhow, im kind of looking forward to the upcoming regionals so i can try and win some more $$ to get my ass through college lol.

Storn · Jun 11, 2005, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Well take a look at the Savage Worlds and BESM systems.
You could make a Guild Wars PnP game from Savage Worlds with very little effort.

Back on topic:
With the time that M:tG has been around, it bodes well for GW to follow the concept.

Savage Worlds is a great game system, much, much easier than d20, but very customizable. You City of Heroes players should check out Necessary Evil, the super villain RPG, that looks like a hoot.... BUT!!! I'm very biased since I did a bunch of artwork for it.

I was going to stat up the Chaar soon for my SW campaign pretty soon here.

Visual Storytelling
http://www.stornc.rpggallery.com/

Zodiac · Jun 11, 2005, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ucilius Winkwalker

Agreed. There are similarities, but very very basic. There is no real card drawing mechanism (very important in M: TG)

A bad luck based mechanism removed

Kudos to GW!

Yes I know you can minimize the luck factor but it will only go so far. If you don't draw lands then you are hosed.

Quote:

there is no alternate winning conditions (grinding deck in M:TG)

There are only two winning conditions in MTG, failure to draw or health reaches 0. But from a different perspective I can say the various different types of tournaments are the alternate winning conditions in GW.

Quote:

can only have 1 rare at a time (as many rares as u can have in M:TG), no multiple copies of same skills (max 4 copies of same card in M:TG)

You are thinking from a single person point of view, you need to combine the 8 skills of each of the team member. That gives you 64 skills and potential of copies and multiple rares. The elite skill for each person can simply be think of as the restricted cards in MTG.

Quote:

no real color of mana management

Can't argue with that, there's no concept of "colors" in GW.

Quote:

no deck only hand (8 skills)

Think of it this way, the deck are the skills that all of the team members possess, the hand is simply all the skills that are available to each member at a particular moment, i.e. the ones that are not recharging.

Quote:

no sideboard oppotunity given after each match unless you lose

That's correct, because the tournaments are single match right now. If in the future some tournaments become multiple match based, it's very likely they can allow skill swapping between matches. It's simply a game feature though, not a design/concept difference.

Quote:

So in my opinion, even though Guild war might be a very innovative game among mmorpgs, M: TG is much more interesting game at the moment because of all the things you can do. If you are looking for a game that very closely simulate a card game, you should check out 'Phantom Dust' for Xbox, two thumbs up for it.

There are of course many differences and we can list countless of them, but it's heavily influenced by MTG from my point of view. As more and more expansion packs are released for GW, more tournament styles are designed/implemented, the simililarity will only increase.

Numa Pompilius · Jun 11, 2005, 11:01 PM // 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makkert

incorrect. the cards have real world value. One can sell cards at marketprice that is influenced by popularity, playability & legality and metagame

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Quote:

Give two players the same set up, and they will perform differently. bad players blame it on 'bad shuffles'. GW bad players blame it on 'n00bs' while have chosen bad tactics themselves.

Even poker is about 2/3'rds luck, In MTG it's probably over 80% luck. What's the luck-to-skill ratio in GW?

If someone prior to buying GW had even hinted there was a link between GW and a hockey-card collecting "game" like MTG, I would never, ever, have bought GW.

Thank god noone did.

Howling Wind · Jun 11, 2005, 11:04 PM // 23:04

I remember this game, a friend once was telling me how good this online game was (very long time ago) and that its like yu-gi-oh care duelling but much better. He wanted to introduce me to this game quite badly that he let me use his account to play (very good friend since his someone I only knew from online and he lives in america and not someone I met personally and he still let me use his account :P).

Well I only had an attempt at the tutorial and after things started coming up, didn't get time and then just didn't bother playing. I think I still have those login details somewhere...but it makes me wish I should have tried the game a bit then, heard alot about it and at that time I got fascinated by yu-gi-oh and its card game (nothing to laugh about its a good game).