Curse

Bastian · Mar 21, 2007, 02:32 PM // 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by PC Gamer May 2007 Information - "Guild Wars Reborn"

Redefined PvP Summary

No real world limitations to servers. You pick a 'world', but can switch between the realms.

PvP World vs World combat sounds to be a massive scale capture the flag (AB style?) with no minimum or maximum party size. Big-ass raids that can supposedly take place for weeks on end. At the end, the 'world' will be reset, and it will start again it seems. More a casual version of PvP where you can pop in and out to perform various smaller tasks. Developers will reshuffle the teams into well-balanced match-ups every week or so.

GvG will still be present, as a more balanced form where everyone is on a level playing field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray
I just chatted with Mike O'Brien, Jeff Strain, and Isaiah Cartwright on the question of PvP. Here is what they said:

There will be two types of PvP in Guild Wars 2:

World PvP will allow you to play characters of any level, using the skills that you have in your possession at that particular time.

Structured PvP (similar to today's GvG) will allow you to enter the game at maximum level with all skills. Yes, that's UAX.

Roleplaying Characters will gain the opportunity to acquire higher levels. I believe that the magazine refers to a cap of 100 or more. This is an opportunity that players have been requesting over the last couple of years. I know that personally, I like the idea a lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Mendes

Wow Anet, you had the potential to develop one of the best and most competitive PvP games, yet you market it to PvE scrubs and are now developping a cheaper version of WoW.
GFG

I know GW2 is a lonog time off, but it is obviously apparent the direction in which ANet is taking this game. PvE has won the battle. From skills like RaO and Shadow Prison, which basically take any skill out of this game currently - to what will be GW's game plan over the next year or so, what is the PvP community to do?

What are your plans?

Patccmoi · Mar 21, 2007, 02:56 PM // 14:56

I'm holding my judgement till more details come out (for example what will happen of the skill system, attribute system, etc.? Arenas? GvG rules/setup?), especially since 2 years is a loooong time in game design (hell, 2 years before WC3 was released it was planned to have 6 races...).

But i'm less than thrilled with what i read there. The reason i play GW is competitive PvP. If this mostly goes in favor of PvE, i don't have much interest anymore (and with what they're suggesting about PvE, it looks like a big WoW to me atm. And if open world PvP is anything close to what WoW looks like, it will never ever be on an even playing field because the chance of having an opponent with exactly your level and gear is infinitely small).

I won't start QQing and screaming at this point, it's pointless and there's still far too little details. And i also believe that the only way to possibly shift GW2's design in something that can appeal to PvPers is more by saying 'we'd like this, this and this and plz think about this' more than 'omg ANet you idiot you killed teh game' which will just be ignored.

But i still went signing up for Fury's alpha after reading that, keep my options open in case it really turns out PvE oriented. I never saw any interesting PvP up to now in a PvE oriented game because they don't take the proper time to balance things PvP wise and it usually ends up with overpowered skills vs overpowered skills and they call it balanced cause both classes have as much chance to kill each other, it just depends on who clicked on his overpowered skill first.

Oh, and what actually bugged me the most is what i read on GW:EN. I'm totally fine with no new classes (enough skill balance nightmare as is). I'm also fine with relatively low amount of new skill per class (but i would seriously have liked something like 150 new skills total, not 100 new skills + 50 PvE only...). But no details at all on PvP possibly means nothing else new for PvP, and this sucks. I would've like an interesting new game type (not Hero Battles T_T), or i dunno, something! Seems like there won't be that much interesting coming PvP-wise in the future and it's disappointing.

Byron · Mar 21, 2007, 03:24 PM // 15:24

I also think its too early to make any judgement. Anet will change their minds ten times before the beta comes out, undoubtedly. And even if they don't, GW is still the best competitive RPG out there, by far.

If you are looking for perfect balance, move on to chess. (I'm accepting challenges, btw)

Bastian · Mar 21, 2007, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

I also think its too early to make any judgement. Anet will change their minds ten times before the beta comes out, undoubtedly. And even if they don't, GW is still the best competitive RPG out there, by far.

If you are looking for perfect balance, move on to chess. (I'm accepting challenges, btw)

I completely understand this perspective. However, the whole concept so far seems a far way off from where, I think, a lot of PvP players would have liked to see Anet move to. I don't expect a perfectly balanced game (although I will take you up on the chess thing

), however, it seems that a lot of skills were made without much thought involved - or even worse - skills were introduced to make PvP easier for new players while grossly underestimating how good those skills are in the hands of good players.

I guess the real reason for the post is because I am dissapointed in the way ANet introduced the PvP for GW2 - even though it is a long time away. I feel that we may have better options for PvP games (i.e. signing up for Fury alpha), and I wanted to know how the PvP community felt (away from the PvE ramblings on the original post introducing the news) and if there are viable alternatives to GW where PvP is very good from an RPG standpoint.

Isileth · Mar 21, 2007, 04:11 PM // 16:11

It doesnt sound great. If it is like the few details we have suggest then its not going to be something im into.

However, we have so few details especially at this early stage im not going to run off anywhere. Anet has made one hell of a game already and I trust in them to make another. Besides, GW im sure will be around for a while

Elrodien · Mar 21, 2007, 04:21 PM // 16:21

I want to know if they will continue to use the 8 skill slots mechanic for GW2. I'm sure they will stick with it, but if they don't its going to be one hell of a different game.

Nurse With Wound · Mar 21, 2007, 05:04 PM // 17:04

I could write here a long, long post about anet betraying PVP players in favour of pve farmers, about end of the balanced and competetive PVP, about guild wars 2 being a copy of wow with gimped, half-assed pvp.....
But I wont.... Because

a) theres not enough info yet about the upcoming game to base a serious assumptions how it will look like. We know nothing, even about the basic mechanics they will use in guild wars 2 ( size of the teams, skill mechanics - will there be skills at all?, victory conditions, classes aviable and differences between them, energy management system, support for the competetive ladder i could go on and on with this list)

b)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Grey

Structured PvP (similar to today's GvG) will allow you to enter the game at maximum level with all skills. Yes, that's UAX.

there is hope they will really do that thing well with all the experience they got from gw1. One thing is obvious. Old guild wars is broken beyond repair ( too many skills, uncecessary classes, permanent imbalance causing frustration of players). New start might be a good idea. Hopefully it will be a good start , because Guild Wars 2 will have harsh competition, to mention only Fury and Warhammer Online...

Patrick Smit · Mar 21, 2007, 05:42 PM // 17:42

As long as Pvp will be the core of skills, and is the only one being important for balances or game mechanics all will be allright. Though i think a differentiation between PvE and PvP will be (even more) bad for people that wanna give it a try in PvP, after they have ground enough or get fed up with PvE. Making much PvE specific skills or characters (traits) will widen the gap even more.

I think I won't really like shoot em ups, but battling AI over and over again becomes boring too. The good thing about PvP is that it constantly changes (or can change) to gain an edge over others. I hope they keep that in mind. Too many skills is not a problem, too many skills with unbalanced mechanics is. SO there need be a strict and fast response to mechanics being abused or disfavoring all other options.

We just have to wait a year or what i guess ^^

Chewbacca Defense · Mar 21, 2007, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Hey thanks for sharing the tip on this Fury Alpha Test. I didn't even know about this game until today.

It looks like it could be promising, but the graphics don't look as good as GW.. though it's still in Alpha. I remember seeing Alpha shots of GW and those were hideous.

From the Fury site, it looks pretty good, just very curious about the game mechanics.

Hopefully, the 100 or so skills in GW:EN will keep things interesting. Otherwise, will have to wait for GW2.

Lord Mendes · Mar 21, 2007, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Since I am spamming the other thread, I figured I would post my point of opinion in this one aswell.
Guildwars had so much potential it's scary. It could have been THE competitive online Magic, THE game being played for massive cash prizes, the balanced game where skill preveiled, but our friends at Anet don't even play this game. Instead of spending time developping the PvP gametypes, balancing the skills, and appealing to the mass demographic that is competitive gamers, they have sold guildwars as a cheap and casual version of Wow.
Because of this BS marketing and failure to attract competitive gamers, they have realized that they could make a crappy WoW like MMO without a monthly subscription and attract a bunch of cheap PvE scrubs. So in essence, instead of developping an amazing competitive PvP game, they are designing a crappy MMO that will never be able to compete with WoW.
YAY!!!

Also, I know that the info is limited but if you think this is all speculation please read the actual thread. Look at GW1, then GW2, and tell me that all the extra features and gametypes being added do not make it more like WoW or any other boring standard MMO.
Mendes out~~

Thomas.knbk · Mar 21, 2007, 07:46 PM // 19:46

The other thread juat got its 1,000th reply. yay. No way I'm going to read that all.
Yes, nurse, Guild Wars is broken beyond repair. There's a thread on the QQ forums 'top 3 broken things', and I saw so many things there that I hadn't even thought about, the amount of broken stuff in guild wars is scary.
Yes, Mendes, Guild Wars could have been the competitive online role playing game. It didn't. They screwed up. We can only hope GW II is better, but really, when you read that don't you already see it's not? The focus is going to be PvE. PvE is not what I play guild wars for. The focus is going to be on the part I don't like. For now, my bets for what's going to be the competitive online role playing game are on Fury.
Sure, we don't know anything for sure and a whole lot can change in two years, but that article does make me sad.
One thing that's good is that they'll abandon the chapter system, which was stupid.

Billiard · Mar 21, 2007, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Seems to me that the PvP and PvE systems in GW2 will be completely separate and thus allow for a lot more flexibility with PvP than GW has/had.

Also, from my talks with folks at ANet, I don't think any of them expected GW to be the end all and be all for PvE or competitive PvP or anything, given the history of most games in the past and the general success of many sequels. GW took 5 years to develop the game engine and get the game to market, and I am pretty sure they were always planning on a bigger and better GW2. Probably GW performed even better than they expected. I think all they really set out to do with it was to prove that their business model would be successful, and they worked to build a playerbase that would be interested in their products. They never sought to merchandise it or push it into the mainstream, which is what you would expect if they were really planning on cashing in on just this game.

Think about it. GW started with no playerbase, no PvP playerbase, and grew really well without a whole lot of additional marketing efforts. Now they have a proven business model, proven track record, large playerbase, and strong brand equity. This should lead to better backing, more marketing, and an even larger playerbase. From reading the article they really look to want to improve the game across the board, and I think this will include the PvP side of things. Perhaps the tournaments they have put on so far have been just a proof of concept test as well, and things will get scaled up much larger down the road. I know that is what I would do before I invested heavily in making it "THE" competitive game.

Dzan · Mar 21, 2007, 10:08 PM // 22:08

The fact that we will all get UAX out of the box for pvp should make everyone jump for joy. This means, essentially, you all won't have to play the pve game you all claim to hate.

I presume that while they will give you UAX, they will continue the good system of making pvp quality gear relatively easy to get for pve toons. If they do that, they will have happy pvp players. This is assuming that GVG stays fun and balanced as a gametype.

The Ernada · Mar 21, 2007, 10:56 PM // 22:56

Putting aside all the other gripes about GW2, what do you all think about a whole new set of skills and the whole new potential for imbalances in GW2? Would it be better to start fresh or keep the skills we have in GW1 and hope they get balanced (or just plain delete some imbalanced skills) by the time GW2 comes out?

twicky_kid · Mar 22, 2007, 12:43 AM // 00:43

Honestly I have always felt that GW1 was just a beta. It has always felt like an incomplete game.

GW2 will take all strengths of GW1 and make the changes that players have been asking for a long time (split pvp and pve, lvl cap raised, ect...). Overall it looks like the game will be much more flexible than GW1 and will be a good product.

Now the question no one has asked. Will their be a monthly fee?

Suedars · Mar 22, 2007, 01:21 AM // 01:21

Gaile Gray has posted that there won't be a monthly fee.

So of course there will be one.

Winstar · Mar 22, 2007, 03:50 AM // 03:50

I have to agree that UAX sounds great rather than having to grind or PvE cap to get up to speed.

My only dissapointment was the lack of information on the PvP aspects of the game as compared to the PvE aspect. So its not the content that worries me as much as the almost complete lack of PvP content in the article.

Patccmoi · Mar 22, 2007, 05:29 AM // 05:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

I have to agree that UAX sounds great rather than having to grind or PvE cap to get up to speed.

My only dissapointment was the lack of information on the PvP aspects of the game as compared to the PvE aspect. So its not the content that worries me as much as the almost complete lack of PvP content in the article.

I think that's a bit what worried me too. I mean, i'm fully aware that the game is in a long time, that tons of things can change and that we have very little details. Maybe they have awesome ideas that will make PvP much more enjoyable too. But the thing is, nearly nothing is said about PvP, basically all they do is talk about the lore and the PvE modifications, which can only make you look at it as a PvE game. It doesn't mean that's what they are aiming for, but it's what the article makes it seem to be.

Seef II · Mar 22, 2007, 06:19 AM // 06:19

It's not like PvP had a whole lot of lore outside the whole "spirits entertain themselves by watching you fight in halls" bit. Either that or a lot of the details except UAX haven't been finalized yet. I wouldn't penalize Anet harshly on this bit, simply because the timeframe for GW2 puts release in '09 at the earliest and concrete info will be difficult to come by for now.

Patrick Smit · Mar 22, 2007, 11:23 AM // 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patccmoi

I think that's a bit what worried me too. I mean, i'm fully aware that the game is in a long time, that tons of things can change and that we have very little details. Maybe they have awesome ideas that will make PvP much more enjoyable too. But the thing is, nearly nothing is said about PvP, basically all they do is talk about the lore and the PvE modifications, which can only make you look at it as a PvE game. It doesn't mean that's what they are aiming for, but it's what the article makes it seem to be.

I guess it may depend on the reporter as well, what aims, or optics does he/she have. A writer, favouring PvE, might highlight different aspects then a PvP fan. Like an environmentalist will always claim that GMO crops or organisms are a threat to the environment, they have no clue (speaking as a scientist). Best would be that information comes from ANet directly, which would be likely to appease all groups. Other then that it will always be coloured by the individual reporter.

Call me a nub, but what does UAX stand for

( literally i mean)