Curse

Winstar · Nov 06, 2008, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgarvin

*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

One possibility is to have raids/dungeons instanced to avoid the lineups as they are in WAR (at least some i've done). In the game world, this is overcome to a large extent by the nature of the Public quest;

A PQ has 3 rounds of tasks to accomplish. Each round participants in the quest earn points for their contributions to the completion of the rounds goals (healing teammates, killing monsters, finding objects...). The trick is that anyone can join in at any time. Instead of waiting in line, you can just dive in with whoever else is involved and you contributions are tracked. You can join them in their group or aid them solo. In the end their is a random roll to which each players participation score is added. The x highest total scores of all participants get a reward from a chest that spawns upon completion. The PQ then resets and starts over.

Zinger314 · Nov 06, 2008, 07:41 PM // 19:41

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually liked WoW's AI in dungeons and the use of threat. What annoys me about GW's aggro system is that it's completely random. Even if you use tanks, something can go wrong. Whereas in WoW, numbers do the talking. And if you get aggro, you just slow down the numbers. Seems more intuitive to me.

-Pluto- · Nov 06, 2008, 07:48 PM // 19:48

I think I read something about the shard system in GW being more like the district system we have now in outposts, so if you're in a persistent zone called "Tyrian Coast" or something, you might be in American District 3, but you could still go to an international district or maybe the European districts (though, the world pvp might make this less likely, kind of like how favor used to make it so you couldn't go to euro districts).

Personally, I don't like the typical server model, like wow uses. Whenever two WoW players meet, in addition to "Horde or Alliance?" the immediate question is "Which Server?" When I meet someone who plays GW, that's it. I don't need to ask anything else; I know I can play some GW with that person. Sure, servers are fine if you and a friend decide beforehand. But I've been playing this game for over 3 years. I've met plenty of other people since I started (too bad the vast majority of them don't play GW though), both online and offline. That's how servers stop me from playing with my friends. We might have both been playing for over a year before we even met. Even if you're a misanthrope, you might want to play with someone you meet on a forum somewhere, whose methods of trolling you find particularly endearing. But ups, He's on Shiro server and you're on Togo server, so not going to happen.

Winstar · Nov 06, 2008, 08:45 PM // 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Pluto-

I think I read something about the shard system in GW being more like the district system we have now in outposts, so if you're in a persistent zone called "Tyrian Coast" or something, you might be in American District 3, but you could still go to an international district or maybe the European districts (though, the world pvp might make this less likely, kind of like how favor used to make it so you couldn't go to euro districts).

Personally, I don't like the typical server model, like wow uses. Whenever two WoW players meet, in addition to "Horde or Alliance?" the immediate question is "Which Server?" When I meet someone who plays GW, that's it. I don't need to ask anything else; I know I can play some GW with that person. Sure, servers are fine if you and a friend decide beforehand. But I've been playing this game for over 3 years. I've met plenty of other people since I started (too bad the vast majority of them don't play GW though), both online and offline. That's how servers stop me from playing with my friends. We might have both been playing for over a year before we even met. Even if you're a misanthrope, you might want to play with someone you meet on a forum somewhere, whose methods of trolling you find particularly endearing. But ups, He's on Shiro server and you're on Togo server, so not going to happen.

Well said. Hopefully the idea of layering the world as outposts are layered in to districts works out, its sounds promising anyway.

Some of my friends from GW and I ran in to this problem when trying to get setup for WAR. One person had some other friends from RL he was planning on playing with, and had joined a little earlier than the rest of us on one server. We tried joining that server but the waits were crazy. We jumped to another but then the others decided they didn't want to toss their characters. So now we're stuck on different servers with no way to cross that barrier without someone starting from ground 0 again. There are transfers, but I don't think any were offered between the servers in question.

zwei2stein · Nov 06, 2008, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually liked WoW's AI in dungeons and the use of threat. What annoys me about GW's aggro system is that it's completely random. Even if you use tanks, something can go wrong. Whereas in WoW, numbers do the talking. And if you get aggro, you just slow down the numbers. Seems more intuitive to me.

If you use tanks in game with GW system, something has gone wrong.

As you described tanking in wow, well thats all of its depth. NTY

Yang Whirlwind · Nov 06, 2008, 10:22 PM // 22:22

From reading all this I see some very interesting suggestions and arguments.
It also makes it quite clear to me how hard (impossible) it is to create a game that will appeal equally to people, since so far you have agreed on absolutely nothing overall.
Now I could launch into a long description what I agree with and what I don't,- but I think most things have already been said.

draxynnic · Nov 07, 2008, 01:51 AM // 01:51

Regarding primary/secondary characters:

This is actually one of the things I really liked about GW. From the core professions, you had almost all the various capabilities you could expect fantasy characters to have, and you could essentially make your own classes by mixing and matching. Where another game might have dozens of classes with various interactions between the base classes (the Wizardry series is a good example of this...) GW can produce this just by having a handful of professions and allowing these to be combined directly. The new professions served to fill in some of the gaps that the core professions left (although, admittedly, some of these gaps could potentially have been filled just as well by adding more skills or even whole attribute lines to existing professions).

Yes, there are problems with the system in GW1 - there's a certain amount of 'false choice' in the system due to some choices being obviously better than others (I personally don't think the Me/E is that bad, but the N/Rt is an obvious issue arising from the Ritualist's primary only being suited to a narrow range of builds that have fallen out of favour). However, I don't think these can't be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Regarding interrupts: I'm a mesmer at heart. Removing interrupts and the ability to mess with the enemy in general would make the game a lot less fun for me.

Regarding scaled monsters: Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing levelling disappearing entirely. If it is in there as more than a marker of how much someone has played, however, it should mean something - a group of level 1s shouldn't be theoretically able to defeat Primordius because he's been scaled down to match (I imagine it's hard to get to Primordius without levelling on the way, hence the 'theoretically).

Regarding in-world PvP: I'm cautiously in favour of the idea, as long as there is no reason to go to the areas apart from PvPing. One thing that could be interesting is having the area between the Great Wall and Ebonhawke as a battleground between human and Charr characters (each with allies from the other races) - however, this would ideally have no direct effect on people who don't want to PvP. (It's annoying when you feel like clearing a zone and find out that in the time you took that break to have a shower and eat dinner, the Luxons took all the outposts bordering the zone in question. Had that happen during the double points weekend... admittedly the system means that occasionally you get to stomp around the other side's areas, but I think in the long run I'd prefer to be able to plan my activities without worrying about what the front line is doing.)

Regarding map travel: Don't you DARE touch it. Flying over a landscape might be fun once or twice, but I've seen WoW players essentially turn off whenever they have to travel. I'd rather just keep to the fun stuff, thanks.

If you want your breathtaking vistas, it can be made an option, but do not make it mandatory. That's a property of MMOs designed as timesinks, which GW gains no benefit from and does not have to be.

Regarding DP: It's a decent compromise - it means that a death isn't a disaster (unless you just lost Survivor) while on the other hand it provides a disincentive to attempting human wave attacks to slowly wear the enemy down. If you're getting to the point where 50% death penalty is the norm, it's probably a sign that you should rethink your strategy and try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azeren Wrathe

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.

None of which helps one bit if you find out someone is playing after both of you have already chosen a server. For an example - if I was to play WoW, I can think of three seperate groups of people would might potentially want me to join them. I'm pretty certain they're all on different servers.

That said, my understanding is that GW2 will have free travel between 'worlds', so this wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

Regarding WoW-style 'hate' - I've always thought it was too predictable, and a bit weak that there are aggro-management skills that would have absolutely no effect on a human. If there's a situation where if the bad guys were being played by real people it would be obvious that their best tactic is to go for the healer, there should be a chance that the monsters should go for the healers... assuming, of course, the monsters are supposed to be smart enough to realise why the character their chewing on that should have died three times over hasn't.

I can see some basis for such a system to exist in the background, but it should be as opaque and unpredictable as possible so gameplay is as much about playing smart and as little about playing the AI as possible. Unless the specific monsters being fought are intended to be stupid and easily manipulated.

wtfisgoingon · Nov 07, 2008, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Regarding map travel: Don't you DARE touch it. Flying over a landscape might be fun once or twice, but I've seen WoW players essentially turn off whenever they have to travel. I'd rather just keep to the fun stuff, thanks.

If you want your breathtaking vistas, it can be made an option, but do not make it mandatory. That's a property of MMOs designed as timesinks, which GW gains no benefit from and does not have to be.

I disagree. Ever played City Of Heroes? I never got tired of map traveling in that game. Maybe if Anet make a system of distance traveling similar to COH, I'm sure many people would prefer traveling abilities over the dull and simple map traveling (which makes the game soo unrealistic).

As for primary/secondary profession mix in GW2, I don't like the profession mixing in GW1, because there were too many ways to abuse skills that way. For example Warriors abusing shadow steps, which was intended for Assassins.
I hope Anet has notice this and will remove the profession mixing, and turn each profession into a more complete avatar and attributes/skills/looks unique only to themselves.

maraxusofk · Nov 07, 2008, 03:52 AM // 03:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

As for primary/secondary profession mix in GW2, I don't like the profession mixing in GW1, because there were too many ways to abuse skills that way. For example Warriors abusing shadow steps, which was intended for Assassins.
I hope Anet has notice this and will remove the profession mixing, and turn each profession into a more complete avatar and attributes/skills/looks unique only to themselves.

i agree. lets make gw another generic mmo. i mean it is half way there already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually liked WoW's AI in dungeons and the use of threat. What annoys me about GW's aggro system is that it's completely random. Even if you use tanks, something can go wrong. Whereas in WoW, numbers do the talking. And if you get aggro, you just slow down the numbers. Seems more intuitive to me.

and that is why u have something called team coordination. im not sure if this still applies (last played in march) but when u aggro something with a tank, if the tank's aggro circle covers ur own team, the aggroed enemy will also attack the rest of the team. after u successfully aggroed the enemy, using dot aoe will force them to flee and can cause the backline to have aggro again.

zwei2stein · Nov 07, 2008, 08:55 AM // 08:55

About scaled mosnters:

What if mosnters change to fit your playstyle.

in "easy" areas they would be compatible with it (rock to your paper), as areas progress to harder and harder and they eventually would become your counter (scissors to your paper.).

Frank Dudenstein · Nov 07, 2008, 01:12 PM // 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by maraxusofk

i agree. lets make gw another generic mmo. i mean it is half way there already.

/agree

It seems like so many people want this fame to be more like WoW. I just don't get that. WAR, LotRO, how many WoW clones do we need? GW is awesome because it is unique.

So let's keep the single world, dual classing, lack of "aggro-tanks", vast array of unique skills ... things that make GW special.

Red Sonya · Nov 07, 2008, 01:18 PM // 13:18

If you ever looked at the mechanics of Oblivion you would see that even though the game scales to the player there is a point where the player no longer gains, but, the creatures do. There is also a summons module that summons different types of mobs for the same dungeons as the player progresses, so, that means that just because there were goblins in a cave at level 2 there could and would be different creatures at level 20. Modding one can bolster these summons up to many things or one thing per level, but, of course Bethesda made it a smorgasborg of things so it wouldn't be DULL CONTENT and the SAME CONTENT everytime you went back to that dungeon/cave. One of the worst things including GW's is that the mobs and content and where they roam is the same everytime you go into that instance. Farming would be cut waaaaaaay down if they would just randomize mobs and their spawn/roaming areas everytime you enter an instance.

DAGGERFALL is still to me the greatest rpg game ever made. 150,000 square miles of adventure and no dungeon/cave content was the same except the initial entry into the game dungeon and you could literally get lost in some of those dungeons, crypts and castles. This is what I'd love to see in an online mmorpg a Daggerfall world and each time you enter the same crypt or cave or whatever there was going to be new content and nothing would be in the same spot or even the same type as it was before.

Bryant Again · Nov 07, 2008, 01:51 PM // 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

About scaled mosnters:

What if mosnters change to fit your playstyle.

in "easy" areas they would be compatible with it (rock to your paper), as areas progress to harder and harder and they eventually would become your counter (scissors to your paper.).

An increase in difficulty? This is how it's supposed to be done. If they make the game scale exactly and precisely to your level you won't see any difference in terms of gameplay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

DAGGERFALL is still to me the greatest rpg game ever made. 150,000 square miles of adventure and no dungeon/cave content was the same except the initial entry into the game dungeon and you could literally get lost in some of those dungeons, crypts and castles. This is what I'd love to see in an online mmorpg a Daggerfall world and each time you enter the same crypt or cave or whatever there was going to be new content and nothing would be in the same spot or even the same type as it was before.

I actually didn't recall there being randomized dungeons...not that I could really tell, anyways. With a gameworld 100x the size of Morrowind you're gonna be pretty preoccupied either way.

I actually didn't even realize there was a story to that game after like a year of playing it. I just assumed it was some awesome, gigantic sandbox RPG. Still the best, even today.

Oh and about the farming in GW2: it's definitely not going to be as near common as it was in GW1. In GW1 it was all about coming up with a build that exploited an area so you could solo it...seeing as how all of GW2 is going to be soloable - save for the endgame - there really will be no point (even more solid proof why we're seeing such a different game this time around.)

Shemsu Anpw · Nov 07, 2008, 03:48 PM // 15:48

I like the Dual profession aspect, but isn't as important I think than the rescalable atts to try different builds. I absolutely hate other MMO's lack of skill versatility and unforgiving attribute system. Love having versatile skills sets.

Non-rescalable atts suck bad: Oh darn I didn't put all my points into wisdom I will suck healing.........What do you mean i have to spend REAL money to restat...WTH. Especially terrible for new players. Terrible in a game.

Just add a scenic way to travel while keeping map travel and everything will be good. I enjoyed GW stories hopefully they continue. Most MMOS don't tend to have a "true" story just "fluff" and background.

I can't think of too many things I don't like about GW. Especially compared to other MMO type games. just please don't make it a WoW and other "standard" MMO clones. GW is unique and flourishes that way. Please keep it that way.

Winstar · Nov 07, 2008, 03:59 PM // 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

I disagree. Ever played City Of Heroes? I never got tired of map traveling in that game. Maybe if Anet make a system of distance traveling similar to COH, I'm sure many people would prefer traveling abilities over the dull and simple map traveling (which makes the game soo unrealistic).

As for primary/secondary profession mix in GW2, I don't like the profession mixing in GW1, because there were too many ways to abuse skills that way. For example Warriors abusing shadow steps, which was intended for Assassins.
I hope Anet has notice this and will remove the profession mixing, and turn each profession into a more complete avatar and attributes/skills/looks unique only to themselves.

(1) The idea that a travel system requires realism is an assumption that I can't accept. In most games MMO, RPG,...there is a balance to find between realism and and enjoyable playing experience. In a traditional RPG rolling dice on tables to calculate the minute details of combat introduces a kind of realism that impedes the game experience. Forced travel is another.

The fundamental point which I have yet to see a reasonable response to is that this is an issue of player freedom that ought not be violated. There is nothing FORCING you to map travel. You can smell the roses all day long if you want getting from A to B. Maybe your journey is the destination. GW never stopped that and in fact many people loved it and spent time doing it. If you don't want to waste your (and often friends) game and time traveling, and want to get somewhere fast, Map travel is a boon. The system is great as it is as it gives the best of both worlds. This is the option that already satisfies everyone.

If you want more realism in the sense that there is an mage npc in every outpost who you talk to to jump from outpost to outpost, well thats fine though still more annoying than pulling up your map and going.

(2) Dual classes can be great. The main problem has always been the relationship between primary attributes (fast cast, expertise, soul reaping...) and how they apply to 2nd prof skills. These problems were amplified by the release of more skills and classes in expansions. These are problems that can be fixed and managed. The problem isn't having a warrior that can teleport, its having introduced teleport skills at all that undermine positioning.

Bargamer · Nov 07, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Didn't read past the first page, my 2 gold: I hate gear wars, or grinding hours and hours in a dungeon for a single drop, and then someone else wins the roll. I hate that noise. Green drops are ok, because 90% of them can be self-crafted, (with no investment in Crafting even!) and not that many of them are at the end of a dungeon/instance. They're vanity items.

I liked the Primary/Secondary class thing. Could it have been balanced better? Sure. Nerfing Necros to bring it down to the Ritualist's level has become the new hobby over at Anet. (No offense.) Personally, I think they should just buff Rits to compete with Necros, but hey.

Haven't played WAR or AoC, but yeah, I played pre-BC WoW. Burning Crusade eliminating (some people say raising the bar) the Crafting Specializations, and pretty much ensuring that you HAD to get the new expansion to keep enjoying your game was the deal-breaker. Also, paying hard-earned money for respeccing (and buying a mount) after being spoiled with free respecs in GW was annoying.

I do kinda wish they'd implement SOME sort of crafting in GW2, just for people who like that. Also, it would be supremely amusing if they made the vendor prices and stock/availability dependent on Public Quests and/or PVP.

wtfisgoingon · Nov 07, 2008, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

(1) The idea that a travel system requires realism is an assumption that I can't accept. In most games MMO, RPG,...there is a balance to find between realism and and enjoyable playing experience. In a traditional RPG rolling dice on tables to calculate the minute details of combat introduces a kind of realism that impedes the game experience. Forced travel is another.

The fundamental point which I have yet to see a reasonable response to is that this is an issue of player freedom that ought not be violated. There is nothing FORCING you to map travel. You can smell the roses all day long if you want getting from A to B. Maybe your journey is the destination. GW never stopped that and in fact many people loved it and spent time doing it. If you don't want to waste your (and often friends) game and time traveling, and want to get somewhere fast, Map travel is a boon. The system is great as it is as it gives the best of both worlds. This is the option that already satisfies everyone.

If you want more realism in the sense that there is an mage npc in every outpost who you talk to to jump from outpost to outpost, well thats fine though still more annoying than pulling up your map and going.

(2) Dual classes can be great. The main problem has always been the relationship between primary attributes (fast cast, expertise, soul reaping...) and how they apply to 2nd prof skills. These problems were amplified by the release of more skills and classes in expansions. These are problems that can be fixed and managed. The problem isn't having a warrior that can teleport, its having introduced teleport skills at all that undermine positioning.

1)GW1 is not worth distance traveling over map traveling because we lacked the freedom to do simple abilities such as jumping
Assassins jumping over trees and rooftops of GW factions would be soo appealing and amazing(just imagine an Assassin sitting on top of the emperor's rooftop, watching over the crowd from above the rooftops...) ...too bad it was never a feature
We cannot walk in houses
We do not have traveling abilities(Warrior massive jump distance) (Assassins ability to shadow step) (Elementalists ability to levitate) etc.
We cannot swim
We cannot dodge/evade
We cannot mount
We cannot fly
We cannot this and that.
Basically we do not have the freedom to perform basic functions around in environments in GW1 to make it worthy to distance travel....

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.

Winstar · Nov 07, 2008, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Dual Classes

Everyone remembers the worst abuses of dual classing, for example;Gale Warriors, Mes/ele b-surge with gale, R/W thumpers, R/D Scythe, Nec/Rits abusing soul reaping and there are others I'm sure I'm missing. Many skills that were not problematic with in one class became problematic when paired with the primary attribute of another class. In other cases the skill itself was too powerful used by another class. As more and more skills and classes were added to the game, maintaining balance became much harder. This can potentially be managed by balances and greater care in working out the relationship between primary atts and 2ndary prof skills. Furthermore, one can hope the design team learned some lessons about how to manage the introduction of new classes and game mechanics.

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.

Winstar · Nov 07, 2008, 05:29 PM // 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfisgoingon

1)GW1 is not worth distance traveling over map traveling because we lacked the freedom to do simple abilities such as jumping
Assassins jumping over trees and rooftops of GW factions would be soo appealing and amazing...too bad it was never a feature
We cannot walk in houses
We do not have traveling abilities(Warrior massive jump distance) (Assassins ability to shadow step) (Elementalists ability to levitate) etc.
We cannot swim
We cannot dodge/evade
We cannot mount
We cannot fly
We cannot this and that.
Basically we do not have the freedom to perform basic functions around in environments in GW1 to make it worthy to distance travel....

This does nothing to support the case against map travel. If you added all these features to GW2 it would make distance travel more attractive but it would still not make it worthwhile for everyone in many circumstances. Having the option to map travel would still be desirable, and would still be optional. Using the current system as a template means that you can map travel if you want, or distance travel if you want (something many people still did even if it wasn't exciting for you). If GW2 does more to make distance travel fun then great. But that doesn't mean it should be rid of map travel given that its still and attractive and desirable feature for many players. Bottom line is that you wouldn't be forced to map travel and I'm wouldn't be forced to distance travel. Forcing people to distance travel - even if improved - is still a bad idea.

wtfisgoingon · Nov 07, 2008, 05:37 PM // 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

This does nothing to support the case against map travel. If you added all these features to GW2 it would make distance travel more attractive but it would still not make it worthwhile for everyone in many circumstances. Having the option to map travel would still be desirable, and would still be optional. Using the current system as a template means that you can map travel if you want, or distance travel if you want (something many people still did even if it wasn't exciting for you). If GW2 does more to make distance travel fun then great. But that doesn't mean it should be rid of map travel given that its still and attractive and desirable feature for many players. Bottom line is that you wouldn't be forced to map travel and I'm wouldn't be forced to distance travel. Forcing people to distance travel - even if improved - is still a bad idea.

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 think many people like GW because it is more realistic than other MMOs.
I've never seen any other MMO who had an Assassin like the one in GW(except for ninja gaiden, but that isnt an mmo), it is amazing to me.