Curse

enter_the_zone · Apr 12, 2012, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

...and therefore they created an achievement for an exploit since then called LDoA.

It is only a long time later that they added the vanguard quests so you can get LDoA without using the exploits.

Unfortunately, the older characters cannot gain that title anymore once they have left pre-searing even after the exploit was made public, going back to pre-searing was impossible. The older characters were therefore permanently excluded from the vanguard quests and the LDoA title. Survivor was similar for a long time too but at least that was fixed recently.

Therefore in GW2 I believe the newer characters may have special privileges compared to the older characters based on what we know about GW1. We don't know what these future features would be but I bet newer characters have a higher chance of gaining access to them than the older characters. For example, something would be too grindy like LDoA, people start to complain, then ANet would add features to make it more obtainable (e.g. the vanguard quests) which the newer characters can benefit from while the older characters have already done it the hard way or are excluded. Such a pattern would repeat itself in GW2.

Yeah, but the counterpoint to that is things like the once expolitable Hearts of the Shiverpeaks, the free chests in early GW that dropped crystalline swords etc... Seriously, in any MMORGP, early adoption is always a massive bonus.

You do realise HoM is account based too, right? So while it's annoying you can't do LDOA for GWAMM on an older char, you can do it for 50/50 towards HoM.

Lanier · Apr 12, 2012, 06:07 PM // 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Aranza

Many of you don't want to hear it, but products like GW have life cycles, and it is already late in the life cycle of GW1.

Of course games (particularly online ones) have life cycles. The point that has been made by some in this thread is that its not time for GW1's life cycle to end. There are other online games that have been going for much longer than GW1, and GW1's sequel isn't even out yet? Why should its life cycle come to an end this soon? I would like for them to wait till after the sequel comes out at the earliest to begin the end of GW1's life cycle.

Daesu · Apr 12, 2012, 06:10 PM // 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

Yeah, but the counterpoint to that is things like the once expolitable Hearts of the Shiverpeaks, the free chests in early GW that dropped crystalline swords etc... Seriously, in any MMORGP, early adoption is always a massive bonus.

You do realise HoM is account based too, right? So while it's annoying you can't do LDOA for GWAMM on an older char, you can do it for 50/50 towards HoM.

You can still obtain crystalline swords today. You can say that there were previous bugs/exploits that SOME players have encountered in the past but those have been quickly closed and they are certainly not ANet's intentions.

Ask yourself, if 50/50 HoM is all that suffice, why are there so many people after the GWAMM title? Obviously many players still prefer to be called a god themselves than just be a Champion of the gods right?

Overall, the newer characters benefit more from the newer features than the older characters which have to rely on short-term bugs and exploits. If these exploits turn out to be too advantageous, players will whine to ANet and ANet may do something about it (e.g. deleting said items from inventories).

Ensign · Apr 12, 2012, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanier

The point is, the sequel isn't here yet.

Also, the 'sequel' has only the bare minimum in common with the original. This has more in common with, say, Blizzard cutting off support for Diablo 2 because they were releasing World of Warcraft.

Destiny2097 · Apr 12, 2012, 08:53 PM // 20:53

and now we get constant err007 and err040

betterjonjon · Apr 12, 2012, 09:53 PM // 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Also, the 'sequel' has only the bare minimum in common with the original. This has more in common with, say, Blizzard cutting off support for Diablo 2 because they were releasing World of Warcraft.

Ill be honest I hate that they are taking what little support they have away from GW1, but this is nothing like that at all. Guild Wars 2 is still considered a sequel to gw1, and plus you can't think of Anet(NCSoft) and Blizzard as the same type of company since Blizzard continues to make a ton of money every year with subscription games, while a type of game like GW1 loses profits much quicker.

Still Number One · Apr 12, 2012, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by betterjonjon

Ill be honest I hate that they are taking what little support they have away from GW1, but this is nothing like that at all. Guild Wars 2 is still considered a sequel to gw1, and plus you can't think of Anet(NCSoft) and Blizzard as the same type of company since Blizzard continues to make a ton of money every year with subscription games, while a type of game like GW1 loses profits much quicker.

It was a good comparison because GW2 is nothing like Guild Wars 1. The only thing they have in common is lore. The gameplay and feeling of the worlds are completely different. Just like Diablo 2 and Warcraft are two completely different games. Having the same name doesn't make them similar.

The point is, not everyone who enjoyed Guild Wars will like Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 isn't just an updated version of Guild Wars. It is a whole different animal with an entirely different feel to it.

The Mancer Man · Apr 13, 2012, 12:02 AM // 00:02

I know its been said earlier...if GW2 crashes and burns...all live team back to GW1?

BuD · Apr 13, 2012, 11:13 AM // 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mancer Man

I know its been said earlier...if GW2 crashes and burns...all live team back to GW1?

Yup & their first release will be GW Utopia :P

Gill Halendt · Apr 13, 2012, 11:35 AM // 11:35

Diablo II doesn't get any new content. It's just getting support from Blizzard.

Same with GW1. It's not getting discontinued anytime soon but will just receive support from now on, which was frankly to be expected.

DiogoSilva · Apr 13, 2012, 01:46 PM // 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

The point is, not everyone who enjoyed Guild Wars will like Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 isn't just an updated version of Guild Wars. It is a whole different animal with an entirely different feel to it.

Of course if it was just an updated version of GW1, there would be no point in a sequel. They could just keep releasing campaigns. But with a better engine comes new ambitions.

Their main philosophy didn't change. GW and GW2 are both games with the purpose to innovate and differentiate from other MMOs, and try to stand at their own by what they are, not by cloning WoW or whatever other successfull models.

If we think about it, GW2 takes a LOT from GW1, when we talk about successful mechanics. Story-driven instances, which the sequel improves upon with personal story customisation. High-game items being mostly cosmetic. A more chaotic, fast-paced battle system where mobility and position are vital, where the trinity tank-dps-heal roles are more ambiguous, and GW2 even completely removes the trinity, and further improves the movement/ terrain position aspects of the batte. Etc.

But then, many of the things that GW2 does differently are an indirect result to many of GW1's "problems", like the removal of secondary professions for much better balance, or the categorized skills in opposition to the original's free-for-all 8 skill slots. GW1 gives the illusion that the build possibilities are countless, but ultimately its all about finding the best 8 synergies and clumping them together (or abusing hidden, broken synergies among countless skills). That's why no matter how much balancing Anet does, or even how many good unused skills exist, the builds are restricted to a few half-dozen at max per profession. Meanwhile, while GW2 gives the illusion of being more restricted in build-crafting, truth is, all weapon skillsets are builds especifically designed to have ambiguous roles, be synergic and be fun (unlike many cookie-cutter builds created by the GW1's fanbase), they are easier to balance (you can just buff/ nerf their skills without indirectly ruining or breaking other builds), which makes it possible for them all to be equally viable, and utility skills and traits offer countless possibilities that give a personality to your build, enhancing it, taking it into different directions, adding new stuff to into it, that make your builds personal, yet do now allow you to take it too far from what's already "pre-set" and breaking the game.

What else greatly differs between GW1 and GW2? The mapping system. Because although instances proved to be great means to tell a story for missions/ dungeons/ personalized areas, they are not needed for normal world exploration. So they were taken out, and instead we got a seamless world full of dynamic events, so we lost one "unnecessary" mechanic, and won one of the biggest seller mechanics.

In the end, I think the people who will prefer GW1 over GW2 will be a very small minority. Mostly people who absolutely love with all their hearts making the most broken hero party combinations (and GW1 wasn't even about this before nightfall), or the most broken builds, and use them to steamroll through explorable areas devoid of interaction with other players. What else does GW1 do better than the sequel?

Hanok Odbrook · Apr 13, 2012, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Evan

The biggest flaw in your argument is that you're comparing apples to oranges on a video game level. People do like to have fun, of course, and I myself love to go back and play the games when I was young, but you have to understand this: Guild Wars is a persistent profit driven game. It is an MMO game that has to be paid for to keep up as time goes by. The games you mentioned are not like this whatsoever. Once you buy the games that you listed, you have them forever. They were produced and require no other way of spending to play. You can load it onto your computer and have fun. Guild Wars on the hand is not like this. It's hosted on a server that once its turned off (and this goes for every other game which is online only) it is finally finished. Guild Wars is essentially finished and because people are leaving (which is self-evident) that money which keeps Guild Wars running is also leaving. The Live Team is focusing it's resources for other purposes which could be endless, and it is secondary to the stagnation of the game's population. Less people also brings less care. They will go where they are most needed and Guild Wars has reached this point in its life. But, as I said earlier, who knows why the Live Team is exactly shifted to Guild Wars 2. Whatever the reason is, I full-heartily believe it is for something positive.

Not really, my point of contention was your statement that players trying to hold on to GW1 are being foolish. The fact that it is an on-line game is immaterial in that respect as us fools are playing something that gives us enjoyment, so like all those other things I mentioned, we want to keep the enjoyment going for as long as possible. That's one of the reasons why I stayed away from on-line only games for so long - when I spend my money on a game that I turn out to really enjoy, I want to make sure that enjoyment can last for as long as my will to play does.

I certainly don't disagree with you on your other points, that it would be foolish indeed to keep the game going if it adversely affects the ability to effectively manage their new game. We all have certainly gotten more than our money's worth for GW, and it will be a shame to see it go, whenever that day comes. But that's no reason that we can't hope that day is long, long into the future (or avoided entirely by Anet making the surprise move of creating GW1 as a fully functional off-line game!!).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

In the end, I think the people who will prefer GW1 over GW2 will be a very small minority. Mostly people who absolutely love with all their hearts making the most broken hero party combinations (and GW1 wasn't even about this before nightfall), or the most broken builds, and use them to steamroll through explorable areas devoid of interaction with other players. What else does GW1 do better than the sequel?

Well, you can count me in that small minority. I don't think I can make a comparison list of what GW1 does better, especially since I am one of the unlucky ones not to have been able to playtest the game at this point (but the fact that you can only participate in Betas by pre-ordering is my newest reason). All I can say is that I started playing GW despite my reluctance to spend money on an on-line multi-player game, because of the experience and features it offered. Those of which included the ability to play a party-based RPG as opposed to the myriad of "Lone Hero" RPGs that the genre turned to after those early games I mentioned in my earlier post faded away. And part of that ability included a way to form a party with NPCs, so I could choose to play the way I wanted to in a pace that I was comfortable with. I also enjoyed the game for it's ability to be able to walk away and come back later without missing anything (aside from the festivals, of course). Those are features that are no longer present in GW2, and some of the additions - such as technology, are things that I don't enjoy in my Swords and Magic RPGs. I just don't find GW2's feature-set as innovative for the time as GW1 was 7 years ago. Much of what GW2 will offer can be found in many other games out now and coming out within the next year and beyond, so there is nothing about GW2 that is compelling me to choose it over any of the other offerings outside of name (and festival events), only.

Hanok

**cosyfiep** · Apr 13, 2012, 05:42 PM // 17:42

I, too, shall be part of that minority....everything I enjoy about gw1 has been removed from gw2 (as well as other reasons I wont be capable of playing gw2).

I would hope that 'support' doesnt turn into 'shut down' since we know that anet tells us one thing and has done something else on numerous occasions. We have already seen a lack of 'support' recently (did anyone see the ingame announcement of the sweet treat weekend?). as well as the slowness of updates.

Ensign · Apr 14, 2012, 06:47 AM // 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

Their main philosophy didn't change.

I could not disagree with this more.

The reason I was drawn to Guild Wars in the first place was that it was a very ambitious game. They were trying a whole bunch of new things, from the totally open skill system to a free-to-play persistent world to a heavy PvP emphasis pervading the entire game. There are artifacts of a whole bunch of tried and failed experiments in the game, and the mechanics are really a disaster zone of shoving everything in they thought might be cool and just hoping it somehow turned out.

Guild Wars 2 is not like that at all.

Guild Wars 2 is an effort to create a free to play MMO with good production values and a low barrier of entry.

I think they'll be very successful at that. The game is phenomenally pretty, and very easy to play. It has some cool themes, and it's free to play. It'll sell millions of copies.

But it's nothing like the ambitious project that was GW1 - the game where they could only hope to accomplish 10% of what they set out to do. GW2 is a game where they put pretty graphics on Warhammer Online, made it free to play, and called it a day. A shrewd business plan? Possibly. But certainly nothing to revolutionize the way we think about games.

enter_the_zone · Apr 14, 2012, 08:24 AM // 08:24

Just to clarify Hanok, pre-purchase isn't the only way to play in the beta's, it's the only way to guarantee you can play in the betas. People who applied for the previous betas may be invited to play in these later ones (I'm guessing it depends on how many people pre-purchase)

Mintha Syl · Apr 14, 2012, 09:59 AM // 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Guild Wars 2 is an effort to create a free to play MMO with good production values and a low barrier of entry.

[...]and it's free to play.

Just to clarify, people get confused between free to play and pay to play. f2p model requires you to buy absolutely nothing, that's where the free comes from. gw and gw2 are obviously p2p.

nought15 · Apr 14, 2012, 12:12 PM // 12:12

you still gotta buy the game, just has no monthly fee.

free to play you just download the game and start playing, but you usually have a big disadvantage with players that buy "perks" or game money, until you too start buying the perks and stuff.

Lordkrall · Apr 14, 2012, 12:30 PM // 12:30

No, GW and GW2 is not P2P. It is P2B. Pay to Buy

DiogoSilva · Apr 14, 2012, 01:41 PM // 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

The reason I was drawn to Guild Wars in the first place was that it was a very ambitious game.

If GW2 isn't an extremely ambitious game as well, I don't know what it is.

Quote:

There are artifacts of a whole bunch of tried and failed experiments in the game, and the mechanics are really a disaster zone of shoving everything in they thought might be cool and just hoping it somehow turned out.

Guild Wars 2 is not like that at all.

But why should GW2 be a "disaster zone of failed experiments"? It's a sequel, it's expected to take the best things out of GW1, and leave the bad things. And that's what mostly happened out. The only great mechanics that GW2 isn't taking from the original is probably the henchmen/ hero system, which is justified in the context of the new mechanics.

Quote:

Guild Wars 2 is an effort to create a free to play MMO with good production values and a low barrier of entry.

What you're describing is a free-to-play WoW, which GW2 is nothing alike.

Quote:

I think they'll be very successful at that. The game is phenomenally pretty, and very easy to play. It has some cool themes, and it's free to play. It'll sell millions of copies.

There's a lot of selling points you're ignoring. Here's a few out of my mind:
-World versus World, which is basically a high-scale production of Alliance Battles/ Jade Quarry/ Fort Aspenwood;
-A casual competitive PvP format that puts Random Arenas to shame;
-A customisable personaly story system in addition to the main narrative, that makes the whole storytelling experience stronger than in the original;
-An online world that is constantly changing, through cycling chains of dynamic events everywhere, with seamless party mechanics, seamless "traditional" quests, seamless rewards, interactive environments, and the like;
-A revolutionary MMORPG combat system that removes the class role specification, the static nature of MMO battles, and the over-reliance on checking health/ energy bars, for a more visceral, chaotic, fast-paced, seamless experience.

Outside of the hero/ henchmen configuration, GW2 makes the original game look like a prototype for what is to come.

Ayuhmii Shanbwa · Apr 14, 2012, 02:51 PM // 14:51

GW2 = B2P = Buy To Play (thats how i know it)

but about the live team, i still ahvent seen a single post of Anet saying they wont add new stuff like the new "upcoming" content for elona, just that it wont come anytime soon

stumme did post something saying that it might come later when they have the time and resources

so GW may be frozen with newer (big) stuff for a while, maybe a long while, but GW still gets new players and has enough people who still will play it after GW2 release
so GW will get them money, and it would be stupid to put an older yet still working moneycatcher down, right?

so the more they get from GW2 (money yes), the more they can give us in GW