Curse

tmr819 · Nov 07, 2008, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

I'd bet that soloing will net you worse drops than grouping, but even if that's not the case: I like H/H'ing. Designing and testing builds and the small-unit tactics of playing with H/H is fun to me.

Amen to this point!

I am hopeful that the SWTOR MMO is going to have a companion/AI party component such as GW1 had, since it seems (to me, anyway) that ANet is now going to jettison in GW2 what I have always considered one of GW1's best features (

). A single "companion/hero/pet" is just not going to cut it, imo.

On another note, map travel is also one of GW1's best features. I agree 100% with the OP on this. The griffon-riding, pony-galloping time-suck travel times in other games (WoW, LotRO, etc.) makes me pine for GW-style map travel -- and not map travel limited to certain classes (mages [WoW] or hunters [LotRO] or whatever) either. Playing an mmo should be fun; long flights, beyond the first griffon ride or two, are definitely not. That kind of thing is just plain tedious.

-Pluto- · Nov 07, 2008, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

We cannot dodge/evade

This is why I'm better than you at Dragon Arena, I guess... =/

Winstar · Nov 07, 2008, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

Well then I guess it is a matter of taste.
Realism vs Efficiency

I'd prefer Realism for PvE, but Efficiency for PvP.
But seeing how many PvErs make it to the top PvP areas, which means realism is the way to go.

I agree that its a matter of taste for one player to prefer distance travel and another to prefer map travel. I don't agree that the decision about what to include in a game is a matter of taste.

If you can satisfy both groups, then this is clearly better than than just satisfying one group.

GW has map travel. Map travel is not forced, so players who like distance travel can do it. This will likely even be enhanced enjoyment wise in GW2. Distance travel is not forced so players who like map travel can do it.

So both groups are satisfied which is of course then clearly better than just satisfying one group.

Unless you are actually personally not happy about my ability (or every other persons ability) to map travel even though you don't have to, you should then prefer the game that allows both.

If you are unhappy about my being able to map travel - when you don't ever have to if you don't want- then I don't know what to say other than thats a bit annoying.

Red Sonya · Nov 08, 2008, 12:08 AM // 00:08

Quote:

There is nothing FORCING you to map travel. You can smell the roses all day long if you want getting from A to B.

Sorry but this falls into the same arguement that was used for URSANS BLESSING..."if you don't like it don't use it", but, fundamentally it's an unfair advantage to give players the right to use quick travel because they will be able to get to all the loot faster and thus gain things faster than the REALISTIC way of travel that many of us believe the games should use. Thus there's no if you don't like it don't use it, there's make it so everybody is EQUAL and on the SAME FOOTING and thus it can't be both ways it must be travel by foot for everyone who doesn't PAY the DRUIDS and WIZARDS to teleport them. That's the realistic route of a fantasy world not some magical everybody in the world can teleport to anywhere they've been before. Sorry, but, that just ruins the RPG element of these games when they allow such transporting activities. Magically teleporting using INGAME CHARACTERS is realistic and I accept that. Using a point and click mouse movements around the globe is not.

Bryant Again · Nov 08, 2008, 12:39 AM // 00:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Magically teleporting using INGAME CHARACTERS is realistic and I accept that. Using a point and click mouse movements around the globe is not.

Using magic is realistic... : o?

That aside, I'd consider foot-travel to only be required for areas that are unexplored. Going from point A to point B is only pretty the first couple of times, afterwards it becomes a chore. If I wanted my video games to be boring then I'd not play video games.

wtfisgoingon · Nov 08, 2008, 12:51 AM // 00:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Sorry but this falls into the same arguement that was used for URSANS BLESSING..."if you don't like it don't use it", but, fundamentally it's an unfair advantage to give players the right to use quick travel because they will be able to get to all the loot faster and thus gain things faster than the REALISTIC way of travel that many of us believe the games should use. Thus there's no if you don't like it don't use it, there's make it so everybody is EQUAL and on the SAME FOOTING and thus it can't be both ways it must be travel by foot for everyone who doesn't PAY the DRUIDS and WIZARDS to teleport them. That's the realistic route of a fantasy world not some magical everybody in the world can teleport to anywhere they've been before. Sorry, but, that just ruins the RPG element of these games when they allow such transporting activities. Magically teleporting using INGAME CHARACTERS is realistic and I accept that. Using a point and click mouse movements around the globe is not.

Right on, I could not have said that any better.
I was going to say that also earlier, but did not know exactly how to word it. Thanks for posting it.

Winstar · Nov 08, 2008, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Sorry but this falls into the same arguement that was used for URSANS BLESSING...

I disagree.

I really don't think that the economic benefits for 1 person over another are going to be even remotely problematic whereas you can make the case with Ursan. Ursan did not in the end make the game better for everyone, and thats the difference. With Ursan you couldn't have it both ways and make everyone reasonably happy. There is absolutely no comparison between the costs and benefits to players who chose and didn't choose to partake. Every game is going to have map travel of some kind, and everyone will use it to some extent. Its not going to be some poor shmuck running for an hour to get to the zone he wants vs the lucky guy who map travels in 10 seconds. There are no gains that are going to make any difference in an economic sense.

Again, if you want flavor 'realism' then having a wizard in every outpost is fine. As long as its every outpost. I don't care about the flavor but don't ask people to pay for. Thats again pushing it.

Bargamer · Nov 08, 2008, 07:26 AM // 07:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

Dual Classes

What is easy to forgot are all the valuable dual classing options that made the characters in this game great and flexible that were not abusive. Consider;

W/e Shock axe - a staple melee template that has been effective through all the expansions of this game.

X/mo support characters - Many midline characters could play flexible support roles through the use of their 2ndary prof. Eles, necros, mesmers, etc. could use skills like draw, forms of hex removal, hard reses and so on. E/mo runners that provided party wide heals and conditional removal were a staple for ever.

R/me/mo with blackout or distortion etc existed ages ago, before the standard r/mo split template existed. The r/mo is itself another example of valuable access to cross class skills to create a powerful and flexible template. Mend touch was adjusted to tone down this template as well as nat stride.

Mo/mes/a/war - /mes used energy management from the insp line in both the boon and B-light era. /a /war etc took advantage of additional self preservation skills.

This is just to name a few examples, but the kind of examples that should be taken as a standard for how dual classing should work. The problem again was not dual classing itself, but the introduction of broken skills, and the relationship between primary atts and 2ndary skills. Again, both of these things can be managed in GW2 without disgarding the primary/2ndary class makeup.

Don't forget the Rit/N, veterans and noobs alike get a kick out of it, years after Factions was released.

Rhamia Darigaz · Nov 08, 2008, 06:44 PM // 18:44

i wish gw would go back to being a unique competitive pvp game instead of just another shitty pve mmorpg that tries - and fails - to compete with WoW.

abri charnel · Nov 09, 2008, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhamia Darigaz

i wish gw would go back to being a unique competitive pvp game instead of just another shitty pve mmorpg that tries - and fails - to compete with WoW.

I guess thats what some of us players fear; that instead of aiming to carve its own niche, it panders to the players who for some reason or another will not subscribe to a monthly-fee MMO. I don't see any problem with WoW; I see a problem with attempting to compete with it by merely copying features.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves; not just what we can learn from other MMOs, but also FPS games (not the twitch, but the teamwork. Don't just look at team fortress and battlefield, which are great games but suffers from lack of depth in my opinion, but look at the Enemy Territory line - both Wolfenstein and Quake Wars for true objective based gameplay). Why not also RTS games (not just siege weaponry but also vehicles - read: mounts which can attack), single-player RPG games (immersive storyline and characters you can identify with - Rurik and Gwen being the most classic GW examples), and arcade racing games (rollerbeetle anyone?).

GW was a success not just because it broke away from the subscription model, but it also provided (before the addition of Heroes) a true co-op game, which made PvE satisfying when a mission was finally completed. Sure, not everyone agrees with this - i remember doing Thunderhead Keep 3 years ago, played it 17 times and failed. When I finally got through on the 18th, it was an amazing feeling. Sure, it was with random pugs that mostly didnt know what they were doing, but we learnt and worked together and that made it fun. WoW you can solo grind most areas by yourself, save the endgame content. Guildwars had little by way of endgame PvE. Your job was to save the world, and that was that. The endgame was PvP, unlike WoW. The two were never in direct competition with each other. Somewhere along the lines, the direction and design philosophy of Guildwars changed to pander to the PvE crowd.

Rhamia, if I may extrapolate from your post to make my argument, I think Guildwars should learn first and foremost from itself. The development team would be better off looking outside of the box, breaking the mould as it did before, all those years ago. This makes Guildwars unique. Learn, by all means, the good and bad from other MMOs, but never forget what your strengths were.

PuppyEater · Nov 09, 2008, 11:45 PM // 23:45

3 things...

1st, Kudos to Anet for not making durability a major element of game play. I know its hardly realistic and while it does make it less of a point, click, watch tv game, I do enjoy not having to take extra gear to avoid dinging up my good stuff on speed bump guys...

2nd, whats all this arguing over level scaling? You are all getting in each others faces over a game mechanic from single player offline games when this is supposed to be about online multilayer games. Besides, Id hate to be lvl 2 and get mercilessly owned because a lvl 55 waltzed down the road near me and the boars Im killing and conversely I don't want to be trying to get some good drops as that 55 only to have everything become super easy and therefor give me nothing worth my time when a lvl 2 decides to follow me around.

3rd, since its obvious that "point, click" travel vs "Weee! Wyvern ride!" travel is never going to be a simple fix why not simply have both but make instant travel in the form of a town teleporter or something but introduce a mechanic that restricts its use, say a 30 minute cool down between warps. That way the people who want the game to be paced realistically get it and it helps solve the very relevant "meet up with team mates" issue. I love instant travel but I have to say that over 3 years of GW its gotten so that the map is just a pretty drawing between missions/outposts.

wtfisgoingon · Nov 10, 2008, 01:54 AM // 01:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuppyEater

3 things...

1st, Kudos to Anet for not making durability a major element of game play. I know its hardly realistic and while it does make it less of a point, click, watch tv game, I do enjoy not having to take extra gear to avoid dinging up my good stuff on speed bump guys...

2nd, whats all this arguing over level scaling? You are all getting in each others faces over a game mechanic from single player offline games when this is supposed to be about online multilayer games. Besides, Id hate to be lvl 2 and get mercilessly owned because a lvl 55 waltzed down the road near me and the boars Im killing and conversely I don't want to be trying to get some good drops as that 55 only to have everything become super easy and therefor give me nothing worth my time when a lvl 2 decides to follow me around.

3rd, since its obvious that "point, click" travel vs "Weee! Wyvern ride!" travel is never going to be a simple fix why not simply have both but make instant travel in the form of a town teleporter or something but introduce a mechanic that restricts its use, say a 30 minute cool down between warps. That way the people who want the game to be paced realistically get it and it helps solve the very relevant "meet up with team mates" issue. I love instant travel but I have to say that over 3 years of GW its gotten so that the map is just a pretty drawing between missions/outposts.

exactly.
that's why guild wars isn't worth distance traveling, lack of z-axis + traveling abilities.

LazyLink · Nov 10, 2008, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Map travel does not thin the population, in fact, if anything it concentrates the population.

Why? I'm glad you asked.

It's simple really, if players are able to map travel there will be fewer players "in between" towns and more players and in towns and outposts. This means there are more people to group, trade and interact with and you know that you are interacting with the entire willing population and not the entire willing population minus the players "in between" towns. So map travel helps concentrate the population.

Numa Pompilius · Nov 10, 2008, 03:30 AM // 03:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

exactly.
that's why guild wars isn't worth distance traveling, lack of z-axis + traveling abilities.

GW does have Z-axis, it just isn't used to calculate hits in combat. "No!" you say, "Yes!" I say, as is proven by height advantage with ranged weapons and the fact that two players can occupy the same x,y coordinates if one is standing on a bridge (if there was no z-axis the player under the bridge would hit an invisible roadblock).

draxynnic · Nov 10, 2008, 04:19 AM // 04:19

On the realism side of things...

A strong impression I've got from reading the material that's been put out on how the world has developed is that by the time GW2 comes around, every city and major town will have an Asura Gate. I'm guessing the sites that you can map-travel to will all have a gate in GW2.

Sonja, we know you really want to play WoW, but your argument is actually the reverse of your position: It's restricting map teleportation to specific classes that's discriminatory. When everyone can do it, well, anyone can do it. The advantage of taking the time to walk instead of map traveling is that you can get drops along the way.

Also:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

2)One profession, therefore more classes, each profession will be useful. Instead of the mixing of professions to take advantage of both classes' primary/skills.
If I started an Assassin, I want to be able to use just Assassin skills, not mixed in with half warrior skills or part ritualist skills... pure professions define uniqueness. Half/Half professions are abusive and difficult to balance(just look at GW1, even the team admits they are unable to balance anymore due to this flawed system, balancing with the current dual system has punished classes that other classes abused their skills, and that's why they are making GW2.)

;Gale Warriors, Mes/ele b-surge with gale, R/W thumpers, R/D Scythe, Nec/Rits, etc etc.
All those are examples of unrealism of the game. A Ranger with a hammer???
Cmon, stick to what the Ranger does best, an archer interrupter.
This is why I do not favor dual professions.
I want realism in GW, just as the sceneries are 95% realistic.

Just because the option to dualclass is there doesn't mean you can't create 'pure' builds. My Assassin rarely if ever takes skills from other professions.

I also have a liking for the 'blending magic with swordplay' archetype which is often neglected in many RPGs. While Guild Wars has the Dervish, with primary and secondary professions it also allowed this to be done with the W/E right from the start.

Regarding some of your examples:
Mes/Ele: The job of a Mesmer is to mess up the opposition. Is it really so bad if they're borrowing a couple of spells from another line when they do so?

Also, as a more general observation, consider your general fantasy wizard - the GW professions are very specialised compared to what you normally see in fantasy - most wizards tend to be able to act in areas that in GW would require mixing two or three professions. Dualclassing allows a player to choose which two areas of magic their character uses, rather than relying purely on whatever associations the game designer chooses to define their capabilities with.

R/W, R/D: Robin Hood was known nearly as much for his skill with a sword as with a bow. Aragorn more so.

Fundamentally, rangers are warriors of the wilderness - bows are pretty ubiquitous, but I see nothing wrong with a ranger being able to fight in melee. If the ranger happens to be, say, a blacksmith while not fighting in the woods, why shouldn't (s)he use a hammer? In fact, Perrin Aybara from Wheel of Time is one such example - he has a wolf animal companion and fights with an axe or a hammer. In GW terms, he's either a R/W or W/R.

Yes, there are some balancing issues, but with a clean slate, these can likely be fixed. Touchers are probably a much better example of a silly combination.

Nec/Rits seem like a match made in heaven in the fluff - a melding of the profession that deals with the corporeal dead and the profession that deals with the spirits of the dead to make the ultimate master of the realm of death. That Nec/Rits happen to be so obviously better than Rit primaries at being Rits is a problem with their respective primaries, not the dual-profession system itself.

PuppyEater · Nov 10, 2008, 06:22 AM // 06:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

GW does have Z-axis, it just isn't used to calculate hits in combat. "No!" you say, "Yes!" I say, as is proven by height advantage with ranged weapons and the fact that two players can occupy the same x,y coordinates if one is standing on a bridge (if there was no z-axis the player under the bridge would hit an invisible roadblock).

Even if it is in the system in some form it doesnt work anywhere near the same as x and y. Traps will trigger if you walk under them and I do believe NPC's will start to try to melee one another on different levels on a bridge even though they wont be doing any damage. (This may not be true in all areas but I do remember it happening in Kaineng City.

-Pluto- · Nov 10, 2008, 06:58 AM // 06:58

actually, you do deal damage to people on other levels. I've done it several times on burning isle, and the jade and Istani RA maps. Also, you can in fact body block the top of a bridge by standing under it. Also done this before too, on burning (and helped wipe some more of a retreating team by doing so). There is still something of a soft-z-axis I guess though, because there still is height advantage for bows and spears.

zwei2stein · Nov 10, 2008, 07:09 AM // 07:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Sorry but this falls into the same arguement that was used for URSANS BLESSING..."if you don't like it don't use it", but, fundamentally it's an unfair advantage to give players the right to use quick travel because they will be able to get to all the loot faster and thus gain things faster than the REALISTIC way of travel that many of us believe the games should use. Thus there's no if you don't like it don't use it, there's make it so everybody is EQUAL and on the SAME FOOTING and thus it can't be both ways it must be travel by foot for everyone who doesn't PAY the DRUIDS and WIZARDS to teleport them. That's the realistic route of a fantasy world not some magical everybody in the world can teleport to anywhere they've been before. Sorry, but, that just ruins the RPG element of these games when they allow such transporting activities. Magically teleporting using INGAME CHARACTERS is realistic and I accept that. Using a point and click mouse movements around the globe is not.

Not it does not.

First, because freaking map traveling does not accomplish anything relevant. It does not break any of intended challenges, you don't GET anything extra of it. Map travel is convenience feature. It removes pointless annoying waste of time, which is huge win because games are about fun waste of time.

Seccond you dare to suggest what is and what is not realistic in fantasy, THE thing that is supposed to be about making random stuff up.

Maybe you lack idea of what fantasy and RPGs are. they don't have any F*** standard rules. Insistence about following any trope is pretty pathetic.

If it makes you feel better pretend that everyone in GW-land has ring that allows then to teleport. anywhere which is about as common as having cell phone in real world. Feel free to roleplay someone who pretends that not teleporting is huge win anytime he goes OUT of his home village.

Winstar · Nov 10, 2008, 05:06 PM // 17:06

If you really want to talk about realism then its clear that there is a certain amount of anti-realism in assuming a rigid class structure. Assuming that human characters can't learn to use another type of weapon or skill just because they are a ranger or warrior etc. is more than a bit absurd. Focus is already reflected in the game through the idea of primary attributes and the inability to increase non primary class atts with runes (a ranger can only get 12 in hammer).

Problems arise when a class can use its 2ndary profession better than a character with that as their primary profession can. A good example of this now is a mes/ele water vs a ele/x water. But again, these are things that can be ironed out and as mentioned elsewhere in the thread there are many many examples of positive dual classing that has made the game interesting and complex.

Ultimately, the model for Guildwars characters was one in which they are maliable. This is great. If you think its somehow not realistic, well, there are lots of other games that will restrict you as you like. Guildwars is a unique game in this regard and its worthwhile preserving this. The market doesn't really need another clone.

In general I don't want to worry on having to worry about eating rations, or taking a dump, or having a bath, or not casting magic spells, or spending half my game time sleeping or getting in long arguments with my girlfriend, or going to the doctor with the flu, and so and so on. Fantasy games set their conventions and work within them worrying about realism in this kind of detail is a joke since every game, not matter what throws realism to the wind at some level. We definitely don't want a game where you hit people with a sword causing them to turn into a bunny who then gains a piano playing skill while you float off into the clouds. But worrying about the flavor of the game because as a ranger I'm using a hammer or because I'm a non magic user who can map travel is absurd.

exactly.
that's why guild wars isn't worth distance traveling, lack of z-axis + traveling abilities.

Your assumption is that having this thing will make it worthwhile to distance travel all the time. The point is that it doesn't. Games like WoW AoC and WAR have these features and for many many people distance travel still sucks in many cases. Having these things will make it more attractive for more people to much about which is good, but it won't make it reasonable to actually replace a decent system of map travel.