Curse

lyra_song · Oct 01, 2007, 08:03 PM // 20:03

GW2....its gonna be like GW, but....(insert new feature or feature tweak here)

FoxBat · Oct 01, 2007, 08:31 PM // 20:31

Just keep in mind that WoW in turn is a copy of EQ with some bells and whistles, and in a more fundamental way than EQ borrowing from UO.

Winterclaw · Oct 01, 2007, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

I do agree with you on this. My hope with gw2 is basically you keep getting "levels" like you do know in GW1 but it shows 21,22,23 or it's based on xp plus what skills you have access to but the attributes (and skills powered off of) stop like they do in gw1. I don't think this would be the case but I hope it is.

That would probably be the best way to do it to keep the GW1 fans content. However that'd also piss off the people who want to show off their level and think they are entitled to be more uber because of it, and the only reason they want a higher max level is so they can feel more uber than anyone else, even though everyone can eventually max out anyways, which in turn makes them demand an increase of the level cap again, etc.

Another way to handle levels is to let everyone "buy" a free non-elite skill every time they gain a level after 20. That would produce a substanial reward for continuing to invest time in their character and make sure they continue to aquire new skills to try out. Plus you usually get enough gold and a skill point anyways with the current system so it'd be close enough to the status quo. Just add enough skills so that players will still have to buy some (a money sink), or add a level cap where you stop getting free skills and voila.

Lonesamurai · Oct 01, 2007, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

However that'd also piss off the people who want to show off their level and think they are entitled to be more uber because of it, and the only reason they want a higher max level is so they can feel more uber than anyone else, even though everyone can eventually max out anyways, which in turn makes them demand an increase of the level cap again, etc.

And why should we care about those idiots tha don't understand the subtlety of the game we love already...

It'll be those same idiots that already say they don't play guild wars because its max lvl of 20 is too low

MSecorsky · Oct 01, 2007, 08:58 PM // 20:58

GW2 will be just like GW except for the areas that are different, and those areas will resemble specific areas from other games, with the exceptions of the totally unique concepts.

Simple, eh?

lightblade · Oct 01, 2007, 09:45 PM // 21:45

Wait and see...

We don't know anything about GW2's features yet. The only things we do know is the lore.

Winterclaw · Oct 01, 2007, 10:53 PM // 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

And why should we care about those idiots that don't understand the subtlety of the game we love already...

Because Anet is listening to their whine, or so it seems to me.

ainkami · Oct 01, 2007, 11:19 PM // 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcady

I play both WoW and GW, and I honestly see more people around in GW than in WoW - it might not be as big of a game, and it may be highly anti-social, but it does seem to have a good number of people. Then again, WoW has a lot of different servers each of which is essentially a different community, while GW has a lot of different servers but the population floats through them all in constant flux (the pulldown to switch districts is one of the best things GW does, and in a more social game could have been something great).

The problem is that while GW is a good and successful game, it has a number of critical problems that make its long term viability problematic. Fixes to those problems are easily seen in the things WoW does right, and fixes other than the ones already seen elsewhere are harder to think of. So it's natural to think of them in WoW terms:

- lack of auction house
- lack of meeting people in the outside world
- low level cap (lack of feeling of advancement)
- all human character species.
- Lack of casual PvP (honestly a community problem, as GW has casual PvP - the RA, but it gets dismissed by players)
- Balancing PvE for the needs of PvP
- So easy to solo that it becomes hard to not solo.
- lack of an endgame for PvE (the endgame is essentially moving to PvP)

These problems don't have to have WoW-like solutions, but the WoW-like solutions are the paradigms that pop into our heads first.

Lack of auction house: Yeah, the only thing guild wars really needs.
lack of meeting people in the outside world: There are towns in guild wars for grouping and socializing.
low level cap (lack of feeling of advancement): Why would you need a number to indicate how powerful your character is? GW devs could have just times the level of all mobs and characters by 10. Would that make you feel better? Ooo, you went from Lv1 to Lv200! Congrats on your lv200 char!
all human character species: GW could use more racial models but this is extremely minor in terms of gameplay and mostly a cosmetic touch.

Lack of casual PvP: There was something called RA and AB before Anet nerfed casualness with the new dishonor patch. Keep in mind, THERE IS NO CASUAL PVP IN WOW Even the level 19 matches requires maxed out characters. I have a lv58 char on a WoW server but I still don't have the 300-400g to equip my lv19 twink rogue. That's not to mention the Arena Masters chest that only spawns every 3 hours and requires you to get it 12 times to get a good trinket. WOW PVP = Level + Equipment(Gold). Minimum skill set required.

So easy to solo that it becomes hard to not solo: Most of people that play MMORPG do solo with a few that duo.

lack of an endgame for PvE (the endgame is essentially moving to PvP): Would putting faction grind into the game be better for GW? Kill a few thousand mobs to gain reputation with a faction just to be able to purchase a few items? Have raids that last a few hours just to have some Boss drop items at a low percentage chance, forcing you to rerun the hour long dungeons multiple times just to get a desired item? The answer is no. It isn't fun and it certainly isn't causal gaming friendly.

WoW = Uber hardcore PVE with very little storyline and poorly balanced PVP
GW = Casual PVE with decent storyline and some casual/hardcore PVP mode

Voltar · Oct 02, 2007, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I think that Jeff Strain is probably going to be suffering from a bit of cognitive dissonance in the near future if he hasn't already..

lol. Will that sound a little something like:

"No! Reputation-grinding...I mean title-grinding...I mean...It isn't really grinding...It's optional...it's like Wow except...No, It's not like WoW...because um...Oh yeah, NO MONTHLY FEE! Ah...(cognitive dissonance resolved).

magicmatt159 · Oct 02, 2007, 12:47 AM // 00:47

sad when guild wars and other online games cant come up with there own game designs and have to copy off wow

lucifer_uk · Oct 02, 2007, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicmatt159

sad when guild wars and other online games cant come up with there own game designs and have to copy off wow

OooooOOooo have you had some insight to the final version of GW2?

Wait till the game comes out before jumping to conclusions guys, we hardly know anything about GW2! Its not really fair to judge and compare it at this stage.

arcady · Oct 02, 2007, 01:45 AM // 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

Here's why I don't see GW2 as wow clone
(stuff is pulled from articles, interview, etc)
[LIST][*]There's a "core" game that everyone has and add-ons ... that add to the core.

This is true of hundreds of game. GW is different not in this, but in the part I snipped out about the lack of a monthly fee.

I suspect the addons is part of why we're losing GW:1 so short into its lifespan. They can only add so many classes and world-regions before the idea runs out. The cancelled Utopia was a logical last product for GW:1. Probably the only reason we got GW:EN instead was because of all the fan inquiries into just what happened to Gwen... Otherwise Nightfall might have been the end of it when they decided the format had run out of steam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

[*]They have stated making it accessible on as many pc's as possible (implies not a "vista" dx10 exclusive).

To be fair WoW wins in this one - it works on just about any PC or Mac.

I wish I could play GW on my Mac...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

[*]They don't like monsters "camping".

Monsters don't camp in WoW either. Players camp monsters though - but not too often. However for quest monsters outside of instances there is sometimes competition to get the kill first. After the first few levels though this works to increase socialization - when two players realize they're both gunning for the same non-instance quest creature, they tend to team up. In the very low levels they don't, but by the 20s people start seeing that if they don't they won't stand an effective chance. And by the 30s many non-instance quest monsters are designed to be unkillable by solo players in the proper level range (elites monsters).

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

[*]Instanced and persistent (implying more persistent then GW1 is now)

This is an example of what in GW:2 would be like a WoW clone, not what isn't. WoW is a mix of instance and persistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EternalTempest

[*]Pve & Pve centric Pvp and a septate "structured pvp" that doesn't fall on the no-max / high lvl limit.

This is how WoW does it. Another example of how GW:2 would be like WoW if it was done as you describe. WoW PvP falls into 3 categories:

1. PvP servers where you can get into PvP anywhere. Player beware gaming. Characters are made for these servers on purpose. In WoW, you make different characters for each server you are on, so your PvE characters will never end up in this kind of PvP by accident.

2. Normal servers where most content is PvE, but there is some PvE centric PvP - a couple of quests that require PvP flagging to complete, especially in the high level zones.

3. Battlegroups - these are structured PvP, and resemble the GvG / AB of GW. You zone into them, have special objectives, and try to either fight it out, capture flags, territory, or some combo. If you lose you get a faction point, if you win you get several faction points. WoW makes it slightly tied to PvE in that you can use these faction points at PvP vendors to buy PvE items.

Redfeather1975 · Oct 02, 2007, 01:57 AM // 01:57

I haven't seen anything about GW2 that makes me think it's a WoW clone.
But then again there are a few people who seem to compare WoW to everything despite WoW being the mother of all unoriginality.
I ain't bashing WoW, it's a very shiny game.
It's just some people out there....did they live in caves before WoW came out?
For example, wikipedia used to say WoW invented raids, but I see it has since been removed.

Mordakai · Oct 02, 2007, 02:53 AM // 02:53

Wait, let me get this straight...
we're worried because Jeff Strain doesn't want GW2 to be compared to WoW?

Seems like if he said the opposite, then we should be worried. (or not, as WoW is a very successful MMORPG).

Meh, this is just another "GW2 is doomed" thread.

Perth68 · Oct 02, 2007, 03:05 AM // 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Higher levels *will* make a difference, but the power curve will be flattened.

Uh damn, I used to know a math equation showing what I meant. I'll provide an example instead: A level 20 character will be stronger than a level 5 character by far, but a level 100 character will be slightly stronger than a level 50 character.

I think you're looking for the logarithm.

Increased level cap is my major concern with what we have heard from GW2.
To put it mathematically even under a logarithmic power curve if someone has exponential more time then me they still improve linearly. I don't know why ANet wants to add these kinds of stat rewards for time spent into the game. I loved grind for cosmetics, not for stats. Why abandon it? Particularly when it would seem that they still want to make a grind free game in GW2. I don't understand.

No level cap sounds like an interesting concept, one that I would like to try. I'd prefer it not to be in Guild Wars the game I gave the banner of "Skill Based" and "Grind Free" in my mind but for a level MMO its more intriguing then grind to cap to get to the end game that you want to play. Still a pure skill based game sounds superior.

In the end we'll have to wait and see what really happens, but till then I am going to be as vocal as possible to make sure ANet knows that I feel that adding time based ability rewards is something that I don't want to happen and am upset about happening in the Guild Wars franchise.

One last thing, to say that GW2 is like WoW but... is silly. From what we've heard its still definitely more Guild Wars then traditional MMO. It does seem to be heading towards a more traditional MMO though.

Stanz · Oct 02, 2007, 04:42 AM // 04:42

Firstly, If it's to any credit of my opinions, I've been following WoW and GW both before they were released, GW was the one I had most anticipation for and stuck with in the end despite playing both extensively.

Now, onto the point..

WoW was an EQ clone with a huge lack of imagination in it's design, as has been the case with most new MMORPG's lately. It worked, because it's worked for a long time. Albeit without the Blizzard and Warcraft name tags slapped on it to create huge hype which largely lead to it's current popularity.

GW took extensive leaps in incorporating new ideas into the basic MMORPG structure. It also worked, because the concept was great and it was put together by a great team of developers. And, although my opinion will surely differ from others, if it had those same name tags to stand on, it would of been as successful if not more so than WoW.

So, the point I'm making has probably become quite obvious now. GW had it's own disadvantages in being such a radical new concept that doesn't really have a predecessor to relate to and some of these concepts had flaws or simply left more to be desired. Some of these drawbacks can be made up for with the original MMORPG concepts.

Now, they aren't going to go shouting and raving about all the things they are keeping; what would be the fun or the point in that?. It makes sense that they are only going to make known the important changes; thus why people are drawing the conclusion that "GW2 = WoW clone".

They are not making GW2 to be 'WoW-like', they are simply filling in the holes that simply can't be filled without it becoming a whole new game all-together.

And there is my opinion. Now if you want to keep doubting GW2 at such an early stage of development instead of waiting to see for yourself then by all means carry on. I for one will await GW2's release and am definitely looking forward to it.

pingu666 · Oct 02, 2007, 05:44 AM // 05:44

im fine with the level cap being unlimited, as long as the basic attribute points etc stop at say 20, so even a level 132 char is still essentialy level 20, just shows roughly how much youve played that chary.

content is also based around player level pretty much, so its kinda a moot point

Redfeather1975 · Oct 02, 2007, 06:04 AM // 06:04

I've been thinking.
I'd be fine if they had a huge level cap if the game mechanics were constantly becoming deeper as we progress in level so that battles, quests and professions will NEVER become stale before reaching the level cap.
If leveling is dependent on gameplay hours, which it usually is in online rpgs, then at level 100 gameplay needs to be FAR more imaginative and engaging than what you'd encounter at level 10, otherwise longevity takes a huge hit to all those except players driven by anticipation of the rewards.
Human Psychology shows that rewards return diminishing results, so it's not wise to rely on them to keep players playing. The first time I ate vanilla ice cream it was amazing, nowadays my ice cream needs to have chunky chocolate chips and cookie dough or else it's just meh.

strcpy · Oct 02, 2007, 06:41 AM // 06:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

I wonder ... what does it mean when while you yourself avoid saying it, but everyone around you does say "It's like WoW", because pretty much anythime GW2 is mentioned, direct WoW comparsions appear, usually concluding that its too alike.

Does that mean ... trouble?

No, those people are comparing it to the Big Kid on the Block. GW1 has been compared many many many times to WoW and we all know that the comparison is irrelevant.

I don't even think there is an Alpha yet, let alone anyone that can really say it is too alike WoW. All we have is Anet's talks about it and there is as much different as is the same. In fact, most of the stuff in the "same" category is junk like jumping and no level cap (except that they have said you quit gaining power early on - nothing like WoW and much more like GW). Most of what I have seen as a "WoW clone" is simply being an MMO - which WoW most certainly did not invent.

Until we see an alpha or beta one can not say. Any of the vague hand wavy type things can be rationalized into nothing like WoW or exactly like it with no monthly fees. My guess is something different, built more off GW, and more towards the traditional MMO framework (of which WoW is but a clone of a clone of a clone - although a very well done clone).

seut · Oct 02, 2007, 07:00 AM // 07:00

humans -> humans
orcs -> charr
tauren -> norn (big hulky creatures)
gnomes -> asura (cute and cuddly)
elves -> silvari (beautiful creatures) (remember Jeff Strain say they'll never do elves..)

most mmo stereotypes for playable races are already covered