Curse

Winstar · Nov 04, 2008, 04:09 PM // 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

I have to agree on this one. Regardless how nice GW2 is done, if they implement world open PvP I will stay away from it as far as possible. It is just a jerk magnet.

I think many people are missing the important difference between world pvp and pvp everywhere all the time in the world. I can understand that you don't want to everywhere all the time pvp. This is never going to make the majority of players happy. I played on unrestricted PvP servers for AOC as I love PvP, but even I was annoyed half the time. I still had fun with it, but its obvious that this will make a lot of the player base unhappy.

World PvP, as its done on WAR core servers is not PvP everywhere all the time. On large maps, there are small areas on those maps that are PvP zones. You enter the zone and are warned and have 10 seconds to leave before you become a legal target. If you never wanted to go anywhere near these zones you wouldn't have to.

These zones are not just a place to gank random people. They have strategic points to capture, keeps to take (both guarded by NPCs and those enemy players who happen to be around if any) and rewards to gain from accomplishing these tasks. In my experience random ganking is pretty rare.

Having these zones in the world and not instanced - as it seems 'the mists' would be - keep players running around in the actual game world instead of pulling them out of it. Which is what you want if you plan on having an persistent world. It would also make PvP more accessible and familiar to most players rather than something unfamiliar.

There is no reasonable drawback to world PvP of this sort. You don't have to worry about being ganked while questing. You don't have to pass through the zones if you dead set against it. But for those who are on the fence about pvp or intrigued but unsure about how to get started its a great venue to get some experience. Assuming GW2 will have world PvP - which we know it will - the only question is the best way to implement it. This in my opinion is a better way to introduce a casual form of PvP to masses.

wtfisgoingon · Nov 04, 2008, 04:33 PM // 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazey vorstagg

Here I believe you are wrong. In fact, map travel works against your prior point about making people easy to bump into, to make the world feel alive. Map Travel reduces the amount of people in the world as people only go straight from objective to objective and don't move between them. In WoW you fly between locations on a gryphon, and although sometimes tedious, this is the best thing they ever did in terms of making the game feel real.
Flying over a landscape where you can see other players questing makes you feel you are moving through a living breathing world, and the time it takes to fly helps impact a feeling on size upon you. Whereas the GW world feels small because you can jump from one side of the world to the other.

Very nicely said, totally agreed, and quoted for the truth.
I along with many others would prefer the distance traveling over map traveling IF the sceneries are breath taking and if we had the ability to jump, mount, have traveling abilities such as speed boost/shadowstep foward for the Assassin, or ability to jump over massive distance for the barbarian/warrior, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azazel The Assassin

While I applaud you for you taking your time to write out your thoughts, there are a few points I wish to talk about:

I am on the fence about the starting place idea. As long as the amounts are few, it's ok. But lore-wise, having all races start at the same place doesn't make sense. While it is good to have people together, sometimes people wish to play alone, with no one else near. With this, imo, the best combination would be a *big* Persistent world or a *small* instant world. GW1 is medium sized, imo, but it shows a lot of empty outposts. Because of this, the population is too thinned. Then there are also the American, Europe, Asian districts and on and on. Too thinned. A Large Persistent World with as few servers as possible would be best.

Sorry, but an I missing something here? If you'd rather play by yourself, why are you playing a ONLINE multilayer game? Save yourself some bandwidth and buy a single player role playing game if you prefer to play alone, because Guild Wars is an online game for a reason, for the interaction of other players, so please don't bring the solo play requests to GW2. GW1 is already screwed up with all the hero/henchman crap...

Bryant Again · Nov 04, 2008, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

Sorry, but an I missing something here? If you'd rather play by yourself, why are you playing a ONLINE multilayer game?

Sometimes people can be stressed out having to be around other players 100% of the time. Besides that, for personal choice. Seeing as how GW2 is going to be entirely soloable save for the endgame raids, it seems like a choice that would have very little affect on everyone else.

And hey, maybe he's playing an online game because it's frequently updated as opposed to those that are offline and left alone. Not everyone sees "online only" correlating with "multiplayer only".

Also, the "hero and henchmen crap" were a byproduct of GW's horrible requirement of needing to play with other plays for every single portion of the game.

Winstar · Nov 04, 2008, 05:34 PM // 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

Very nicely said, totally agreed, and quoted for the truth.
I along with many others would prefer the distance traveling over map traveling IF the sceneries are breath taking and if we had the ability to jump, mount, have traveling abilities such as speed boost/shadowstep foward for the Assassin, or ability to jump over massive distance for the barbarian/warrior, etc.

Still strongly strongly disagree

I accept that you have to run through zones at least once to get from outpost to outpost. Also there is nothing wrong with making it possible to spend the time running through zones for whatever reasons you have be it smelling the flowers, seeing what random encounters you run into and so on.

There is something wrong with forcing people in all circumstances to waste time doing this. You might like the view, but not everyone will, and not everyone will like it the 300th time that have to get from A to B. This is why map travel is important. If I want to join my guildmates at some distant point in the game forcing me waste my time and their time to get there is unacceptable.

Map travel is there as an option not a requirement. In general no one is forcing you to map travel if you don't want to - though angry guild members might provide motivation. A persistent world that is alive and active with lots of things to provides should provide the motivation for people to be in it (another reason I like world PvP in the world) - add to this the desire to simply explore and there are many reasons the world will be full and will not be undermined by map travel.

This is just another one of those cases where giving players options is just much smarter game design then forcing their hand.

abri charnel · Nov 04, 2008, 05:44 PM // 17:44

I too, was one of those who tried WAR out, and I've stopped playing. I pretty much agree with every one of the OP's points, and in my humble opinion, the best update in the history of Guild Wars was when they allowed players to respec their characters without cost and instantly.

With all respect to WAR as being the first to introduce the Public Quest system, I think GW2 has something similar in the works as well, announced quite some time back before WAR was released.

Someone posted about PQs being boring because of the kill X mobs sequence. PQs get much better in WAR's final tiers, where you can see the play of alternate-ending scenarios. For instance, if you fail to complete a certain set of objectives by a certain time, some other NPCs spawn, and you have to finish the quest in a certain way. In short, late game PQs allow for different ways in which to complete the quest, and this choice would be good if implemented well.

I strongly agree with the no-segregation theory. Dividing the MMO playerbase always is a bad thing: - see luxon/kurzicks. Factions was good in theory, bad in implementation, but ultimately when players have to be forced to pick a side, it results in the perceived population being diminished.

Different racial starting areas is perfectly fine. WAR did that quite well; although your race started in one area, other players of a different race could group up with you as long as they travelled to your starting zone. If GW2 implements race-themed starting zones, this is crucial.

In reply to Chocobo1:-
Bumping into people randomly? That was pretty much impossible due to instanced zones. There were so many outposts in the game that most of them were empty anyway. The only way to "bump" into people would be going to something like ToA, Lions or Kamadan and that would be usually just to trade or UW. My definition of bumping into people would be finding people doing something while you are doing something else and are completely unaware of there presence. This didn't happen at all in GW.

- It all depends on how the instancing is implemented. As many people were turned off by it as attracted to it. We know that GW2 will have both. At the end of the day, it depends on how they work it out. I know for a fact that PvE dungeon-crawling is a pain if you get wiped and all your efforts are gone because the mobs respawned, and you have a DP facing you. Chances are, you'll not try again for some time.

Large ammounts of skills are good? If anything, GW has proven that this is terrible. 3/4 of the skills in the game aren't usable outside a joke build, the others are overused by everyone to get maximum effect from the class. This isn't a bad thing, but the cookie cutter builds always dominated over the hundreds of skills that were unable to be brought up to scratch.

- This is true, but what we hear in the works is that skills will be fewer but more complex in the way they are used. We dont know the details, but I'm sure the GW2 design team is going to implement it well. GW1's skills are already unique, both in their conceptual sense and the fact that some of them are already situational which gels with the idea of builds/team builds.

I felt the Primary/Secondary idea was only good in theory. In the game all it did is take roles away from the primary class and make them useless. Mesmers shouldn't outperform Elementalists at their role, Necromancers shouldn't be able to outdo a ritualist and Sins shouldn't be able to tank better than any Warrior can (PvE shadowform before you talk about PvP wise). I feel if they had just kept primarys without secondarys, the game would have more options in using different classes. Ele's would be needed to snare, Warriors would still be good at tanking etc etc.

- True, in that niche areas were intruded in; I think the worst examples are the touch rangers and thumpers running around. But keeping primaries without secondaries is not the solution. This is so unique because it allows flexibility. Sure a ranger should ideally not be able to do so many other things, but hey, thats what player creativity is for right? There are so many other benefits to having dual professions that your argument is moot. See monks with secondaries for energy purposes (once, a long time ago, the meta) for instance.

Also going on to talk about DP. It's one thing that really bugged me about GW for it's lack of thought. Sure, it puts you off dying and doesn't let you have free goes but it's punishing someone who is already having trouble completing whatever they are trying to do? So now they get to go back and have an even tougher time?

- Partly agree. But at the very end, DP is temporal. You can always try again another time. Dying should be punished - but can you think of any other way to do so without turning a player off? Getting DP-ed once or twice is not bad; you can still complete the mission/area without problems. Dying 4 times is a sure sign that - forgive the expression - "u r doing it wrong".

abri charnel · Nov 04, 2008, 05:51 PM // 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

Map travel is there as an option not a requirement. In general no one is forcing you to map travel if you don't want to - though angry guild members might provide motivation. A persistent world that is alive and active with lots of things to provides should provide the motivation for people to be in it (another reason I like world PvP in the world) - add to this the desire to simply explore and there are many reasons the world will be full and will not be undermined by map travel.

This is just another one of those cases where giving players options is just much smarter game design then forcing their hand.

This i agree with. You always have had the option of seeing the world in your own way; no one ever forced you to map zone. If you map travel, you used it because of its convenience. Not all of us have the patience to run through a map hundreds of times, avoiding the mobs in the area and killing them again and again just to reach the places we want to get to.

This of course raises the question of mounts; and whether we could learn from generic MMO #314502 by implementing them. Sure - as long as map travel is never taken out; sitting on your pretty horse is fine by me, i'll take the instant travel any day.

Winstar · Nov 04, 2008, 06:14 PM // 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by abri charnel

This of course raises the question of mounts; and whether we could learn from generic MMO #314502 by implementing them. Sure - as long as map travel is never taken out; sitting on your pretty horse is fine by me, i'll take the instant travel any day.

I think if the monster spawn distribution is the same as it was in GW1, then mounts won't be that useful. The reason they seem to work in WAR anyway and AOC is that there are generally safe paths on which you can travel relatively uninterrupted - roads and such. In GW1 most zones were dense enough with monsters and pop ups that you would often be dismounted to fight anyway. So you're not really gaining anything by having them.

Of course this might change. There are lots of reasons to have mounts even with map travel. If you running around in a certain zone - which can be relatively large- its nice to be able to move quickly when you need to.

Shemsu Anpw · Nov 04, 2008, 07:43 PM // 19:43

I have played some MMO's that require you to walk every where it was the most boring and annoying thing to do.

Basically they should just impliment a scenic quick travel method and a outpost/map travel so that everyone is happy. Overall if Anet imlpements both in some manner I think everyone would be happy enough in what they like best, not to shun GW 2 due to a lack of a specific feature. I don't see it being overly difficult for them to impliment.

The only other interesting thing I saw which "service" type runers would kill to have, was in RF online a high level type caster class got access to a teleport type spell to take a whole party from one seperate area to another. That type of travel was from like the high end (seperate areas) which saved both time and Lots of Money to travel back and forth to the normal areas. Which I'd like to see but I'm not sure it has a place in GW setting.

abri charnel · Nov 04, 2008, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

I think if the monster spawn distribution is the same as it was in GW1, then mounts won't be that useful. The reason they seem to work in WAR anyway and AOC is that there are generally safe paths on which you can travel relatively uninterrupted - roads and such. In GW1 most zones were dense enough with monsters and pop ups that you would often be dismounted to fight anyway. So you're not really gaining anything by having them.

Of course this might change. There are lots of reasons to have mounts even with map travel. If you running around in a certain zone - which can be relatively large- its nice to be able to move quickly when you need to.

This is quite true.

In any case, I believe that the issue underlying the idea for no-map travel has probably more to do with the fact that players want an excuse to explore areas and feel that they are a part of a larger world. On the flip side, some players do not want to be punished by being forced to waste time seeing scenery for the millionth time.

Perhaps the middle ground solution would be to have vast areas irrelevant to the main storyline/missions, and uniquely different (unlike dungeons/special instances) which players can choose to visit (without being forced to).

A case in point - we have numerous areas in GW where players will never see unless they choose to pursue the cartographer title. What we essentially need are persistent (non-instanced) areas players will want to visit, far away from the main towns, where those who choose to travel there on mounts can do so.

WAR solves that idea of unexplored regions by putting Public Quests in many corners of the map so that there will be a reason to BE there. They sure aren't mandatory; but players will go there all the same. This way we do not punish the map-travel lovers, because the PQs are entirely optional, and we do not alienate those who like to explore areas which are normally not instantly accessible by map travel.

Sisyphean · Nov 04, 2008, 10:12 PM // 22:12

One other thing I just remembered to steal from WAR:

Timed content, or otherwise content that you can fail. I know GW has some stuff like this already (in terms of hard mode vanquishing before you get DP'd out, etc.), but I think idea that you actually need to do something well, instead of just being able to grind through slowly over weeks, is important to maintain a level of difficulty for certain activities.

Obviously leave some things that you can just grind through at your own pace, but let some things require a certain amount of skill or performance.

Limu Tolkki · Nov 05, 2008, 12:23 AM // 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Really? If so, that clinches it: I'm not buying GW2.
As Oblivion proved: having monster level according to player level is the single worst idea in gaming ever.

I totally agree with this one. Probably the worst thing that could happen. Please Anet, do not do this!

Azeren Wrathe · Nov 05, 2008, 06:54 AM // 06:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Dudenstein

Aside from PvP, GW greatest strength was that it was instanced enough to be ONE WORLD, not broken into millions of servers.

There are SO many advantages:

1. I can actually hook up with different groups of friends and play with them. Wow!

2. I am not restricted to prime-time hours to play anything involving a group. I can actually play with other people whenever I want!

3. Guilds actually mean something. Who cares if you are the number-one ranked guild on server #452655. Who cares if your guild has a wacky reputation for doing fun things on server #963445. No one else knows who you are...

4. Issues like population imbalances that plague virtually every other game magically go away. (Population issues are almost singlehandedly destroying Warhammer as we speak ... they were fully prepared for issue, talked about it extensively before release, and it's still driving people away in droves and killing the game).

ok couple things
1) I can actually hook up with different groups of friends and play with them. Wow!

how does having a non-instanced world prevent you from grouping with different groups of friends? most friends i know plan which server they are going to go on, so you and all your friends are on the same server. if new 'friends' decide to play tell them before hand which server you are all on. if anything a non-instanced world would be better for this in that you can still group with your friends but you can meet others (randoms) who are in the same area and can group with them as well, helping you meet new people and form new 'groups of friends' etc etc.

2) I am not restricted to prime-time hours to play anything involving a group. I can actually play with other people whenever I want!

if you play an international server there is allways people on at any given time, but furthermore if you play a server for your time zone (oceanic for me) then the majority of people on that server will be running by the same clock you are, meaning there will be a MUCH larger number of guilds running raids/dungeons at a time convenient to you and it will be easier to get into such guilds.

3) Guilds actually mean something. Who cares if you are the number-one ranked guild on server #452655. No one else knows who you are...

guilds are still in competition with eachother regardless of the number of servers. raiding guilds compete with eachother based on how difficult a raid they can finish, they dont ever face eachother in person so it doesnt matter if they are on different servers or the same servers, forums will allways boast raiding accomplishments which spreads through the community so people will become aware of the names of the 'best' raiding guilds. interms of PvP its simple, link all the servers, WoW did it. this means that any of those PvP specific guilds out there can compete against eachother regardless of what server they are on.

4) Issues like population imbalances that plague virtually every other game magically go away.

ok granted this is much tougher to solve without a huge population base (like WoW has). i think the best solution would be to start with fewer servers, say 3 proper ones, to help handle the grunt and have a solid population at the same time. Then as the population increases add mroe server accordingly, this would keep the population evenly spread (theoreticaly). however thats not an amazing solution, but its all i could think of lol.

Proud Elitist · Nov 05, 2008, 08:09 AM // 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazey vorstagg

Here I believe you are wrong. In fact, map travel works against your prior point about making people easy to bump into, to make the world feel alive. Map Travel reduces the amount of people in the world as people only go straight from objective to objective and don't move between them. In WoW you fly between locations on a gryphon, and although sometimes tedious, this is the best thing they ever did in terms of making the game feel real.
Flying over a landscape where you can see other players questing makes you feel you are moving through a living breathing world, and the time it takes to fly helps impact a feeling on size upon you. Whereas the GW world feels small because you can jump from one side of the world to the other.

People also have to consider the economic value of map travel. The main reason why I think teleporting doesn't exist in World of Warcraft is because of its economic base. Essentially, if you were able to teleport to an auction house that has naturally cheaper prices for an item, people will make no hesitation to teleport to that destination to buy it from there, no competition is achieved within the other auction houses and no one would try to buy or sell a product for less or more than what is at that auction house. However with physical map travel, people have to consider this, "Do I really want to travel for 1 hour in order to get the best price possible on this item?"

Quote:

Progression and Gear: This is where GW met it's maker, in favour of a pvp orientated game they made gear reach a certain cap where it could improve no longer. Good for pvp, but it meant pve had to be pulled along solely by storyline and vanity items. This isn't good for PvE, and it leads to an inevitable decline in players because there's no way to better your character so once you've completed the storyline you're done.

Generally speaking, within a MMO-PvE centric game, time playing the game = how well off you are. This is because in these mmo's you need to pay to play. So the more that you pay to play, the better off you'll be. That is not an example that Guild Wars should follow. It creates a distortion of actual skill of each individual, it also creates grind.

So essentially, they can have an incredible storyline and incredible vanity items in order for it to live a long life. For example, a constant changing world (public quests was an example) is a good way to establish this. For example, while traveling with a group, you notice a bridge is out. Well thank god Joe knows how to build a ford. A way to immerse yourself in a massive living world that you feel you can have an impact in, that's what they should be aiming for; not epic gear.

The best structure of an MMO game I have ever played was EVE (however, it's also pay to play). Too bad it's pretty boring.

Targren · Nov 05, 2008, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Agreed 100% with the combat mechanics. It's nice to have something deeper than Slash/Nuke/Heal.

Also agree with Numa, although my ideal example goes back a bit further than Gothic.

Back in the old days of Dragon Warrior, you cross a bridge too early, you're either dead or, if you're damned clever, one or two fights give you huge boosts.

I have to vote nay on the way GW guild system works, though. I like the idea of Per character builds, and here is why... Whenever a game has been around for awhile, guilds start to specialize. Happens in GW too. You have your PvP guilds (even more specialized into faction-farming AB guilds, HA guilds, GvG guilds...), PvE title hunter guilds, PvE farming guilds, PvE Elite area guilds... Sure, the specialized guilds might occasionally dabble in the other areas, it doesn't happen often, and it's usually done on a lark. It feels to me like you lose some of the options that way.

Azeren Wrathe · Nov 05, 2008, 10:43 PM // 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proud Elitist

People also have to consider the economic value of map travel. The main reason why I think teleporting doesn't exist in World of Warcraft is because of its economic base. Essentially, if you were able to teleport to an auction house that has naturally cheaper prices for an item, people will make no hesitation to teleport to that destination to buy it from there, no competition is achieved within the other auction houses and no one would try to buy or sell a product for less or more than what is at that auction house. However with physical map travel, people have to consider this, "Do I really want to travel for 1 hour in order to get the best price possible on this item?"

perhaps im wrong, though im almost certain im not, but in WoW all the auction houses are linked and thus the same, so there was difference between them and what they had (except between horde and alliance). it didnt matter if you were in stormwind, iron forge etc. For instance Darnassus typicaly had all of 5 people occupying it at one time, yet it allways had an up to date auction house. if what your saying was right then iron forge and storm wind would have very 'complete' auction houses due to their huge population and darnassus would have all of 3 items on it (exagerationt here but you get the point) because of its miniscule population. yet that wasn't the case, ergo the auction houses are exactly the same, so theres no point going from darnassus to iron forge as you wont get a better deal there.

abri charnel · Nov 06, 2008, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azeren Wrathe

ok couple things
1) I can actually hook up with different groups of friends and play with them. Wow!

how does having a non-instanced world prevent you from grouping with different groups of friends? most friends i know plan which server they are going to go on, so you and all your friends are on the same server. if new 'friends' decide to play tell them before hand which server you are all on. if anything a non-instanced world would be better for this in that you can still group with your friends but you can meet others (randoms) who are in the same area and can group with them as well, helping you meet new people and form new 'groups of friends' etc etc.

2) I am not restricted to prime-time hours to play anything involving a group. I can actually play with other people whenever I want!

if you play an international server there is allways people on at any given time, but furthermore if you play a server for your time zone (oceanic for me) then the majority of people on that server will be running by the same clock you are, meaning there will be a MUCH larger number of guilds running raids/dungeons at a time convenient to you and it will be easier to get into such guilds.

3) Guilds actually mean something. Who cares if you are the number-one ranked guild on server #452655. No one else knows who you are...

guilds are still in competition with eachother regardless of the number of servers. raiding guilds compete with eachother based on how difficult a raid they can finish, they dont ever face eachother in person so it doesnt matter if they are on different servers or the same servers, forums will allways boast raiding accomplishments which spreads through the community so people will become aware of the names of the 'best' raiding guilds. interms of PvP its simple, link all the servers, WoW did it. this means that any of those PvP specific guilds out there can compete against eachother regardless of what server they are on.

4) Issues like population imbalances that plague virtually every other game magically go away.

ok granted this is much tougher to solve without a huge population base (like WoW has). i think the best solution would be to start with fewer servers, say 3 proper ones, to help handle the grunt and have a solid population at the same time. Then as the population increases add mroe server accordingly, this would keep the population evenly spread (theoreticaly). however thats not an amazing solution, but its all i could think of lol.

1. I'm not sure about this but - a non-instanced world has more players in one area, so it must necessarily be able to handle the load. If i'm not wrong, instancing helps to divide the server load so that you can have more players simultaneously experiencing content without overloading the server. This is why (again, correct me if i'm wrong) GW can have no server divisions. This is pure win. Warhammer online is now handling server merges because it miscalculated the amount of servers needed to handle the population, and players got spread too thin.

2. True.

3. Timezones also separate guilds. A US guild cannot be said to be in direct competition with a Korean one, for instance, because they might never get to play at the same times. You do not even need servers/shards for this problem of non-competition to happen. Regardless, it -is- true that in GW, we run into players from certain guilds all the time, and these are more instantly-recognisable. This adds to the feelng of community.

4. See point 1.

At the end of the day, GW2 I believe has already planned to keep the 1-server-no-divisions idea, if I read correctly.

@ Topic - One more thing I can think of that WAR did extremely well was the introduction of Guild Rank. The idea that a guild can gain experience just like an individual player is excellent. Players can feel like they are contributing to the growth of the guild. The guild unlocks benefits as the guildrank increases. While GW2 does not necessarily need to copy this entirely, the devs should keep in mind the idea that player-contribution to a guild-entity is very useful in building community and guild cohesion.

Additionally, guild leaders in WAR have the ability to give names to ranks within the guild itself, and allow the members of different ranks access to different guild privileges. For instance, accessing guild storage, carrying special guild-only items in battle etc.

Ralgha · Nov 06, 2008, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Number one thing that must be in GW2 is a MARKET.

Number two in my opinion is an actual economy. Look at EVE, then figure out how to make something like that work in GW2.

Azeren Wrathe · Nov 06, 2008, 08:59 AM // 08:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by abri charnel

1. I'm not sure about this but - a non-instanced world has more players in one area, so it must necessarily be able to handle the load. If i'm not wrong, instancing helps to divide the server load so that you can have more players simultaneously experiencing content without overloading the server. This is why (again, correct me if i'm wrong) GW can have no server divisions. This is pure win. Warhammer online is now handling server merges because it miscalculated the amount of servers needed to handle the population, and players got spread too thin.

2. True.

3. Timezones also separate guilds. A US guild cannot be said to be in direct competition with a Korean one, for instance, because they might never get to play at the same times. You do not even need servers/shards for this problem of non-competition to happen. Regardless, it -is- true that in GW, we run into players from certain guilds all the time, and these are more instantly-recognisable. This adds to the feelng of community.

4. See point 1.

At the end of the day, GW2 I believe has already planned to keep the 1-server-no-divisions idea, if I read correctly.

@ Topic - One more thing I can think of that WAR did extremely well was the introduction of Guild Rank. The idea that a guild can gain experience just like an individual player is excellent. Players can feel like they are contributing to the growth of the guild. The guild unlocks benefits as the guildrank increases. While GW2 does not necessarily need to copy this entirely, the devs should keep in mind the idea that player-contribution to a guild-entity is very useful in building community and guild cohesion.

Additionally, guild leaders in WAR have the ability to give names to ranks within the guild itself, and allow the members of different ranks access to different guild privileges. For instance, accessing guild storage, carrying special guild-only items in battle etc.

1) i dont think what you said is really relevant to the point, not trying to be an arse but i think you got a bit off topic there.

3) the time zone problem isnt a problem for PvE raiding/dungeon guilds as they are never in face to face competition with eachother, only in competition by 'reputation' so it doesn matter when they play, only how difficult a dungeon/raid they can finish. and as said forums host guild accomplishments and bragging rights and soon knowledge of 'good' guilds spreads through the community regardless of server. Linking all the servers for pvp creates a pvp environment the same as the current set up in guild wars, if people play at different times it is going to be a problem regardless of the 'one' server. so in this the number of servers is really irrelevant.

4) dungeons/raids are the biggest drain and so if they are instanced that problem dissappears. the rest of the world being non-instanced simply makes you part of the 'world' which is the drive behind mmo's, and with proper server management it is easily possible to have a good population.

what your talking about with the guild ranking and privledges etc sounds awesome, i whole heartedly support it.

Winstar · Nov 06, 2008, 06:09 PM // 18:09

Quote:

what your talking about with the guild ranking and privledges etc sounds awesome, i whole heartedly support it.

This was a cool idea, but it makes it harder for new guilds to get off the ground. Given the nature of the game, the main selling point of guilds in the recruitment process will likely revolve around guild rank. One of the nicer things about GW1 was the ease in which guilds were made and remade.I don't like the idea of guild rank granting PvP bonuses for this reason like it does in WAR. This goes against the idea of easy access fair PvP that underlies GW.

I'm somewhat torn on this, but at the very least lots of guild stats would be interesting to keep. For example for GvG, rather than just keeping track of wins and losses, if the guild menu tracked all kinds of stats like kills in GvG matches, record in tournaments, record vs certain guilds. I'm a stats junky so more stats are cool

.

That said there will always be some measure people use to evaluate whether they should join a guild or not, and the biggest one for PvP is probably how well respected the indivudal players are by the larger community.

I'm too busy to think straight atm...

fgarvin · Nov 06, 2008, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Persistent world......having abusive farmers upset that you're stealing the mobs they're spawncamping, and waiting in line to kill the boss badguy. No H/H = forced grouping

*off to rethink finishing HoM.

Somehow I totally forgot about those two proposed GW2 mechanics. I've tried persistant worlds...absolutely insane....everyone waiting around for a mob to spawn....so stupid. I want a world to be at least somewhat "real".

Bold = Worst idea ever. Do people really play games like this? /sarcasm