Curse

HawkofStorms · Aug 11, 2009, 05:55 AM // 05:55

I agree that a shared sever is awesome. It works on Eve because the population is so low and the universe so massive. Champions Online is also going to be run the same. I hope that is the trend towards MMOs in the future. Only reason to split it up now is latency issues and overcrowding.

pumpkin pie · Aug 11, 2009, 06:54 AM // 06:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syntax42

snipped limited skill snipped

^^ that is what GW2 will have, limited skills. End of story. Which is something I quite dislike.

I wouldn't change a thing of GW, and hope GW2 will be a different experience and the game play even more exciting then GW. otherwise, I'll have to be content with playing GW

and I disagree with you on the part where caster should be affected by blind ... etc. If anything, when blind, it should intensify their other senses, making casting ability even more effective.

TottWriter · Aug 11, 2009, 07:05 AM // 07:05

I'm also in agreement that shared servers are great. One of the most irritating things about MMOs such as WoW (the only other one I've played, so I can't comment elsewhere) is when you create a character on a server, then realise AFTER you've put in loads of effore (for WoW, effort=grind) that your friend plays on a different one. Sucks.

For me, I'd agree with the poster that wants more 'crafting' abilities - I mean, maybe not making your own armour - while that's great and all for WoW, where only a few people will specialise with that skill as there are so many others, if everyone was crafting armour, it would be... well, firstly rather unrealisitic (how many expert tailors do you guys know?) and would also probably not be as good an idea as you first think. If you can sell the armour the economy would be trashed on account of everyone selling more or less the same thing. If you couldn't? To give it any purpose, it would obviously have to take some form of 'training' to make the best armour. Meanwhile, I can see players constantly making utterly redundant armour. I quite like that you have to go to a specialist to get armour - it makes sense.

For me, I'd like to see more sidequests in PvE. If we're going to have titles, it could avoid the excessive grind, and it also gives a bit more endgame to PvE without excessive work on programming new areas. And I totally agree with the idea that someone had of making secondary professions have their skill power cut. Perhaps not in half - with only limited skills on a bar, that would make second professions rather redundant (would you use 'nerfed' skills if you had a choice?). But casters definitely shouldn't be running with major melee skills as they are now. (sf abuse)

As for what I'd love, to be honest, a good, gripping story that is enjoyable to play, with perhaps a bit more endgame than endless grindy titles. And also incentives for PvE players to get into PvP. I don't do PvP at the moment - mainly because hawking for groups sucks when you've never done PvP and you have a deep, unsettling feeling that you're going to go out there and get trashed by someone that's gone it loads. Separating the arenas into experience levels would be good. If ever there's a place for a useful title, it would be a 'Victories in Arena' one. Once you have a level of the title, you move on to play with others that have it, in an unlocked hall. That way experienced players don't get stuck with 'noobs' like me, and newer players don't get utterly disheartened by constant failure, and give up altogether. Yes, I know it would possibly end up being abused slightly as the 'Ultimate status' title, but it would also serve a very real use.

The Female Necro · Aug 11, 2009, 07:17 AM // 07:17

i would say " Change it when it comes out"

Zahr Dalsk · Aug 11, 2009, 07:25 AM // 07:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syntax42

make blindness cause spells to fail (after all, you can't see who you are casting a spell on while blind).

You were saying?

Lonesamurai · Aug 11, 2009, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

How do non-segregated servers co-exist with a persistent world design? I don't want to be artificially walled off from players either, but how could that work?

exactly the same way it does now, but rather than the hard cap of 100 per town,have a hard cap of maybe 10,000 (easily comparable to when GW was released) and use the towns/outposts as "hubs" for map and server jumping (and map jumping will be in according to interviews)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

I agree that a shared sever is awesome. It works on Eve because the population is so low and the universe so massive. Champions Online is also going to be run the same. I hope that is the trend towards MMOs in the future. Only reason to split it up now is latency issues and overcrowding.

but thats the thing, EvE ISN'T one server, they actually use multiple servers and each area of space is a separate HUB, and the chat windows and market take all info from yet another server

CCP where absolute geniuses with the way they did it as you can still chat to anyone anywhere and see most info and even most Market/contract info anywhere and it works

tmr819 · Aug 11, 2009, 05:16 PM // 17:16

If I had any say in GW2's design, I'd recommend they offer --

--Modes of play, allowing players to switch between two modes (in much the way you are able to change districts now), which you would set in common areas before you left the city/town/outpost gate
(1) Persistent world mode: persistent regions, instanced dungeons and missions, no henchmen or heroes, maximum player party size of 5 (in other words a WoW/EQ/LotRO-style world environment)
(2) Instanced world mode: instanced regions, instanced dungeons and missions, henchmen/heroes, maximum party size of 5 (in other words a GW1-style world environment)

The two "worlds" would be identical in every other respect -- same landscapes, quests, bosses, etc., but the regions in each mode would be scaled and designed (mob-wise) to match the mode you had chosen.

If this kind of setup proved logistically unworkable, then I'd rather GW2 set up entirely different servers -- Instanced or Persistent -- on which you could create your character because frankly, if ANet offered the option of playing GW2 in either "Classic" mode or "New Coke" mode, I'd choose Classic in a heartbeat.

It'd sure be nice (imo) to play an MMO that actually allowed players to "toggle" back and forth (i.e., in towns and communal areas) between player modes depending on how you felt like playing that particular day.

Nodakim · Aug 11, 2009, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

That's because a warrior isn't supposed to tank, and you're a terribad player for thinking it is. A Warrior is for high single-target damage and sometimes knockdown spam. Not a tank, never was, hopefully never will be.

Guild Wars isn't meant to use tanking, which is part of why SF is so problematic.

Why the hell does he have high armor and skills like Endure,Defy Pain,Dolyak Signet etc?
For the lulz?

Tr0n · Aug 11, 2009, 05:40 PM // 17:40

All I need is a cool event system, that will spread across regions and persistent instances, a working auction house, housing and a more action oriented combat.

After that, it's all fine with me.

Mordakai · Aug 11, 2009, 05:48 PM // 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

It'd sure be nice (imo) to play an MMO that actually allowed players to "toggle" back and forth (i.e., in towns and communal areas) between player modes depending on how you felt like playing that particular day.

IMO, that would kill (or diminish) the whole point of persistent areas.

If a certain percentage of the player base is running around their own instances, and avoiding persistent areas, then the persistent areas will become ghost towns, and any Public quests set up to take advantage of large amounts of people being around will be worthless.

While I am skeptical about many changes in GW2, the addition of persistent areas is one I am most excited about. It will make GW seem less like a single player RPG, and more like a MMORPG.

That said, I DO still want there to be a variety instanced areas so when I want to be by myself, that is still possible. But trying to combine the two seems like a bad idea.

Shayne Hawke · Aug 11, 2009, 05:54 PM // 17:54

GW2 Suggestions Thread, in Sardelac where it belongs.

Rhamia Darigaz · Aug 11, 2009, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

2. No more metagame. There is like 101 ways to defeat you opponent. I don't need to be told to run these specfic skills all the time.

wat? metagaming, the act of using out-of-game information to influence in-game decisions, will always exist. sounds like what you want is a wider variety of viable builds, which is called balance.

Lonesamurai · Aug 11, 2009, 06:25 PM // 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke

GW2 Suggestions Thread, in Sardelac where it belongs.

or that could just be locked down and Inde could open up the GW2 Guru to everyone

Gigashadow · Aug 11, 2009, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Speaking of server caps, Aion has about a 6500 concurrent users per world cap (this number was mentioned in I think February's quarterly report or conference call). WoW beta (back in 2004) had a 3500 cap (back when they exposed these numbers to players). World does not mean one machine, of course.

Guild Wars supports 2500-3500 concurrent users per machine according to this article about GW's architecture. However it says the machines were 2.5GB and the scalability issue there is mainly memory, so going 64-bit should allow for larger numbers.

The world cap might be based more around desired community size rather than technology though.

Zahr Dalsk · Aug 11, 2009, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodakim

Why the hell does he have high armor

Because a Warrior is meant to attack on the front line, and so will often take more incoming damage from the other team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodakim

and skills like Endure,Defy Pain,Dolyak Signet etc?
For the lulz?

So that we can identify shitty players really easily - they're the ones who actually use those skills.

Nodakim · Aug 11, 2009, 07:46 PM // 19:46

I know that the current place of Warrion in the game isnt tanking,and that it never really was,but i am saying that they CAN tank and have tanking skills.The warrior class was partialy planned as a tank,but it isnt really one now.
On the other hand a Earth type Elementalist is a "pure" tanker with dmg skills.

Snow Bunny · Aug 11, 2009, 08:20 PM // 20:20

Minimize the potential for imbalances in certain classes to allow them to replace classes who were designed for that purpose.

As an example - n/rts out healing monks.

shoyon456 · Aug 11, 2009, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Theres literally no solid info about gw2, so there's no way to say with certainty how anything will be. You can't change what you don't know.

However, in general terms:

Keep the low level cap ffs - This appealed to strategy-minded and mature players and suddenly WoWers and little kids go "awwww, boooz, i cantz go up past 20, this game suckz"

Don't block off/cut out expansion classes and continents. Why limit the player? We've seen them in GW1, so it would be a big disappointment to not have them at the start. I personally would feel a little gyped. Npcs going "cantha/elona is too dangerous..." my response: I freaking killed shiro in cantha and a god in elona, and you say theyre TOO DANGEROUS?

Racial abilities - GW1 was built around an even playing field, where skill was meant to matter. Racial abilities take away from that ideal and force players to make a class of a certain race for optimal effeciency, to be taken any kind of serious.

EDIT: Most importantly, I would change all this "dragon lore." I can't imagine seeing the big RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing deal about these dragons after killing a god, although chained. It seems to me the easiest and most cliche fantasy storyline where the dragons are the source of it all. GW1 lore was unique, but they seemed to move towards the hackneyed attempts of other games with the beginning of eotn.

Curseman · Aug 11, 2009, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Yeah, if there are going to be racial differences, just make it something negligible, like each race gets a single, pve only skill (preferably one that isn't as good as all of your class skills later in the game) or something like that.

Shakkara · Aug 12, 2009, 01:23 PM // 13:23

I'd remove levels and classes and just stick to skill lines.

And boot out the Asura and Norn as playable race, in favor of Tengu.