Curse

Vinraith · Sep 20, 2007, 06:51 PM // 18:51

First off yes, it's very early to be concerned about GW2. However, the concerns I'm going to discuss here are very fundamental to the underlying design of the game and have already been mentioned in dev reviews, so I don't think I'm too far out of line.

Anyway, things that brought me to GW:

1) Instancing. I don't play "true" MMO's because I don't like other people being able to interfere with my game. I don't have that much time to play, it's not worth my while to waste it dealing with loot thieves, kill thieves, or just general nuisances of various sorts. I also hate the respawn that tends to accompany persistent explorable areas.

2) Henchmen, heroes, and soloability. I have a few friends that play the game, and enjoy playing with them, but frequently we aren't able to coordinate game time. If a game doesn't have a strong SP component it isn't worth my while. I enjoy being able to play this game seamlessly with friends or with AI help. One of my few real aggravations with the game is that pesky 3 hero limit, but that's already been done to death in other threads.

3) No fee. I don't believe in paying for a game over and over again, so I like the structure NCsoft and Anet are using here.

4) The skill system. The collection and combination of skills keeps me coming back more than any other element of the game design. If it weren't for the 8 skill limit, and the thought that has to go into builds (both for myself and heroes) I wouldn't still be playing.

What's all this got to do with GW2? Well, we already know from dev discussion that 1) will be significantly reduced and 2) will not be present in the design. 4) is up in the air. I'm not going to stand here and scream about the fact that GW2 will be terrible, but I do want to voice my personal concern that, with 2 of the main things that brought me to Guild Wars in the first place gone, GW2's design seems to be headed in a direction away from myself and customers like me. I don't buy games because of the name on the box, I buy them because they suit my playing preferences. I'd like to see the Guild Wars franchise keep some of these crucial elements that make it unique from other online RPG's, and consequently the only one I own and play.

Mohnzh · Sep 20, 2007, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Mild concurrence, here. I both like and dislike instancing, so I am somewhat intrigued by what it will be like without it. It may be worse for some of the reasons you listed and others you didn't. But I hope that it will be able to add a good element to the game. Maybe they can prevent loot stealing the same way it is done now, by reserving drops. I don't know how currency drops would be handled, though.

Without instancing, you would think that heroes and hanchmen would not be needed. I disagree. I would rather there be heroes and henchmen in case you find abandoned areas (such as Jade Quarry is now). Throughout the GW world I have found numerous places where I could not find a group because the outpost or mission staging area was empty. If that happens to certain areas in GW2, it would cause serious problems with the absence of H&H.

I very much agree concerning point 4. I love the challenge the skill system presents. In my other favorite games (FF series), every skill you own is available to you (as long as you are the right class). Once you get all the right skills, you do not have to do any sort of preparation before adventuring. It doesn't matter what you encounter, you have all the rights buffs and skills. With GW, you have to scout out the area to know whether your build will work. That makes it fun and challenging. The requirement of thinking use to be a major selling point of RPGs back in the days of the original Dragon Warrior and Final fantasy games. Now, thought isn't such a big deal anymore, graphis and scenery are. GW still retains that level of thought necesity. It would be a shame to see that lost. If they don't include the 8-skill set limit design, hopefully they will create something equally challenging.

All that is left is to wait and see.

Bryant Again · Sep 20, 2007, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Mind if I break up your post, Vinraith?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

1) Instancing. I don't play "true" MMO's because I don't like other people being able to interfere with my game. I don't have that much time to play, it's not worth my while to waste it dealing with loot thieves, kill thieves, or just general nuisances of various sorts.

I'd imagine a lot of the quests being like how they are in GWEN right now: talk to the guy, he takes you to another area where you're alone and you can do the quest. That's one solution to people stealing your kills. Aside from that, Guild Wars has had many quests in the game that are more complex than your average "Kill X amount of monsters", so I'm not entirely sure how that'll work unless they have GW2 as it is now - with outposts and everything else an instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

2) Henchmen, heroes, and soloability. I have a few friends that play the game, and enjoy playing with them, but frequently we aren't able to coordinate game time. If a game doesn't have a strong SP component it isn't worth my while. I enjoy being able to play this game seamlessly with friends or with AI help. One of my few real aggravations with the game is that pesky 3 hero limit, but that's already been done to death in other threads.

From what I know, it's been said in GW2 that you'll be able to do a mission alone, or with friends. The sounds of that make it seem like GW2's encounters will be based on party size. Then again it's been a long time since I've read the article in PC Gamer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

3) No fee. I don't believe in paying for a game over and over again, so I like the structure NCsoft and Anet are using here.

Guild Wars would not have the loyal following it does now if it had a fee. I don't think this'll change with GW2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

4) The skill system. The collection and combination of skills keeps me coming back more than any other element of the game design. If it weren't for the 8 skill limit, and the thought that has to go into builds (both for myself and heroes) I wouldn't still be playing.

This isn't so much as a concern but more as something I'm very interested in hearing more about. It's said that the combat system will be more involving, and that skills will have multiple effects depending on what you do (example: There could be a sword skill that when used will simply attack the enemy, but when you jump and use it it'll do like a jump attack). So that's got me pretty hyped.

Again, most of this stuff is what I remember from way back when, so please prove me if I'm wrong.

SpeedyKQ · Sep 20, 2007, 07:37 PM // 19:37

Yeah, I'm with you on the instancing. 100% instancing is the reason I tried GW after refusing all other MMO's, and removing it is the biggest thing I'm worried about in GW2.

Didn't they say that most of GW2 would be soloable? I'm guessing the idea is with a high level cap, areas designed for a group of 8 level 30 characters could instead be played solo with a level 50 character, for example.

Vinraith · Sep 20, 2007, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedyKQ

Didn't they say that most of GW2 would be soloable? I'm guessing the idea is with a high level cap, areas designed for a group of 8 level 30 characters could instead be played solo with a level 50 character, for example.

They said something to that effect, yes, but I can't figure out how it's possible (I'm not saying it's ISN"T, mind you). If it works as you say, what about the places that are designed for the "end game" and require 8 max level characters?

But strict soloability aside, I really enjoy constructing complementary party skill bars with heroes. The skill system itself loses some depth for me if I've just got a lone character (or a character and companion) rather than a troop of 3 heroes with me to design builds for.

Bryant Again · Sep 20, 2007, 07:42 PM // 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedyKQ

Didn't they say that most of GW2 would be soloable? I'm guessing the idea is with a high level cap, areas designed for a group of 8 level 30 characters could instead be played solo with a level 50 character, for example.

Like I've stated, the game sounds like it all either be soloable or be able to be played with friends. Kind of like what Hellgate is advertising. It might be a new route for MMOs.

EternalTempest · Sep 20, 2007, 07:44 PM // 19:44

Various info from lots of different interviews

Quote:

1) Instancing. I don't play "true" MMO's because I don't like other people being able to interfere with my game. I don't have that much time to play, it's not worth my while to waste it dealing with loot thieves, kill thieves, or just general nuisances of various sorts.

They said there will be more persistent but they are stilling havint Instanced / Persistant. There will be no "monster" camping.

Quote:

2) Henchmen, heroes, and soloability. I have a few friends that play the game, and enjoy playing with them, but frequently we aren't able to coordinate game time. If a game doesn't have a strong SP component it isn't worth my while. I enjoy being able to play this game seamlessly with friends or with AI help. One of my few real aggravations with the game is that pesky 3 hero limit, but that's already been done to death in other threads.

No idea...

Quote:

3) No fee. I don't believe in paying for a game over and over again, so I like the structure NCsoft and Anet are using here.

They stated gw2 will have no fee's

Quote:

4) The skill system. The collection and combination of skills keeps me coming back more than any other element of the game design. If it weren't for the 8 skill limit, and the thought that has to go into builds (both for myself and heroes) I wouldn't still be playing.

It may be not 8 skills but they did say there going to have a "set" limit of stuff you take out with you.

Fitz Rinley · Sep 20, 2007, 07:47 PM // 19:47

I agree. I have enough trouble with griefers, scammers, riders, mappers, etc. in a game where they are supposedly voluntarily committing themselves to play for the team's best possible outcome. This is one reason I hardly ever PvP and virtually always play solo.

If they Eliminate the savage grind fests for gold, titles, items, armor, etc. I would have a lot more fun playing - and helping others play.

I also do not play games I have to pay for repeatedly. The net-pusher for Evercrack, World of Warcrack, etc. simply cannot have my business.

It could be a move away from AI on hero/hench because of the incredible headache we as players have been about their horrible support. The AI has improved 1,000% since I first started playing 2 years ago. However, the medium still forces rather simple AI. Skills still seem more to act at random instead of reasonably, hero energy mgt simply cannot be intelligent, and skill stringing by a hero is virtually non-existant.

As to changes in the skills - maybe they will set it so you can use a controller (hand-held) which would turn me off completely - but make games much easier to pander to the cable TV/game-box crowd.

HawkofStorms · Sep 20, 2007, 07:58 PM // 19:58

Still too earlier to complain about GW2. A lot of the stuff you are saying is just based on assumptions. People just think because GW2 will have some non-instanced stuff and a high level cap that it must mean it will be exactly like WoW. GW2 will still be a different game. They will keep what they like about GW1, and get rid of what they don't. Don't expect GW2 to be exactly like GW1 or exactly like WoW. I expect more of a hybrid that will fix a lot of the existing problems.

Bryant Again · Sep 20, 2007, 08:00 PM // 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

Still too earlier to complain about GW2.

I see no complaining in this thread.

Vinraith · Sep 20, 2007, 08:02 PM // 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

Still too earlier to complain about GW2.

I agree, which is why I'm not complaining. I don't see anyone else doing so either, and dearly hope that the level of discourse in this thread will remain at the high level it's maintained thus far. I don't want any complaining about a game we know so little about in this thread, that'd be pointless.

Quote:

A lot of the stuff you are saying is just based on assumptions.

Nope, because all I'm doing is stating what I like about the design of GW1, and what I've heard about the design of GW2. I'm not making judgements, it's too soon for that, but considering how early it is I figure it's the perfect time to comment on fundamental design (which can't be changed later) and what I see as the biggest strengths of the original game.

wilebill · Sep 21, 2007, 12:01 AM // 00:01

GW2 is still a hazy concept a long way off. Just wait and see. We may like what they do, or we may not. Time will tell.

redstarx · Sep 21, 2007, 01:19 AM // 01:19

I love GWs the way it is now and I know alot of people do as well. Anet can be very suprising with their work and I believe GW2 is worth the shot. There are so many things they can do to prevent KS and Loot stealing like other games do, say you hit a monster, it is already assigned to you and if someone outside your party kills it, they get no exp. and the same goes for loot, it can be assiged to you or a party member but not anyone outside the party until it idles for x amount of time. (some games give it up to 5 minutes before it idles).

It is also of my concern how it will be with GW2 but I have faith in Anet and the Dev. Team. They have done a wonderful job with GW and they keep on coming with more. Even if alot of people are not satisfied wih chages, I believe GW has been very unique in many things, lets just hope they keep that up.

The Dev. Team is A++, keep it coming guys.

Nemo the Capitalist · Sep 21, 2007, 01:54 AM // 01:54

nothing worse than having 9 parties full of 12 humans=98 peopple

killing mallyx and winning team gets loots=waste of time grind

draxynnic · Sep 21, 2007, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilebill

GW2 is still a hazy concept a long way off. Just wait and see. We may like what they do, or we may not. Time will tell.

There are a few things that already appear to be... if not set in stone, at least set in clay. For instance, the lack of emphasis on levelling seems to have been removed (for PvE, at least). And for the other things... we can either wait or see and get what we get, or we can provide some input to the devs of what we'd want to see and thus have a chance of actually getting it.

Going through the OP's points:

1) Instancing. What I think I'd be hoping for is for the 'persistent' areas to be completely optional - or, better yet, for each area to have the option to enter the persistent incarnation or an instance (say, through an option similar to the Hard Mode/Normal Mode toggle we have now).

2) From what's been said so far, the professions are going to be balanced with the intention of allowing solo play without NPCs. I'd have to say that I'll miss the freedom of being able to construct a semi-customised party that will (hopefully) work together with the various elements like a well-oiled machine - but on the other hand, it does mean less NPCs that can do something stupid that results in getting you killed. Although... I'd love to know how this is going to work if they introduce anything like the Offering to Melandru that has to be carried in your hands and breaks if you put it down...

3) ANet has been pretty firm about rejecting the idea of a subscription fee for GW2. So I think we're safe on this one.

4) This is certainly an important one in my mind that I don't think we've heard anything about either way (unless it's in that article of PCGamer). The creation of builds was certainly a welcome change in my mind for a couple of reasons. First, it makes the gameplay simpler - instead of having to look for some obscure, rarely-used skill when you realise the time is right to use it, you either do without it or it's sitting there on your bar saying "use me". Second, it adds replayability to a character - instead of being the same set of skills all the time, you can figure out different sets of skills that work together in interesting ways. Third, it allows the game to have more skills in total rather than being limited by the point where it becomes ridiculous to add more abilities that have to be chosen from in the field.

I could certainly see a place for some option to switch one skill out for another or gain temporary use of a skill (like the skill gems in the alpha...) when you realise that you really do need some skill to leave behind, and the number of skills on the bar could potentially be changed without ruining the system, but I'd certainly rather keep the system as it is than go back to "all skills available all the time... if only you can actually find the skill you want when you want it".

Esan · Sep 21, 2007, 03:27 AM // 03:27

I'm one (of the few) who believes that henchmen and heroes are not the bees knees and we should really be open to game designs that do without hench. To be clear, I wish we could use more than one character from our account simultaneously, with one of them being main and the rest being in hench mode. (Think Namco's Tales series.)

I also would like the game to react intelligently to my team composition. If I enter an instance with a physical damage team, the instance should present me with more SS, BV and blind. If I use mainly spells, I should see more Backfires and Power *. And so on. The game knows my build, so why does it always present me with moronic challenges. I am tired of mowing through hordes of level 28 foes like putty because I have their counterbuild. If the game is intelligent enough, a one-on-one or two-on-two instance can be just as fun and challenging as the 12-on-8 and 24-on-8 "elite" areas we have now.

The point about the superiority of GW's skill system also doesn't sit right with me. GW currently has very low demands of skill execution. There are almost no formation requirements because most skills simply care about range. Imagine having skills that require a pincer formation to excute properly, or skills that actually reward intelligent use of 3-D positioning such as jumping in the air before releasing the ashes of Lingwah to summon a floating spirit of Pain.

draxynnic · Sep 21, 2007, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

The point about the superiority of GW's skill system also doesn't sit right with me. GW currently has very low demands of skill execution. There are almost no formation requirements because most skills simply care about range. Imagine having skills that require a pincer formation to excute properly, or skills that actually reward intelligent use of 3-D positioning such as jumping in the air before releasing the ashes of Lingwah to summon a floating spirit of Pain.

That's more an issue of having more conditions on how (some) skills work (does +X damage if flanking the target, for instance) than of changing the skillbar system we have now.

arsie · Sep 21, 2007, 05:56 AM // 05:56

WoW is soloable. If you spend your entire time killing mobs that are usually alone, you can solo all you want. Can't go on raids or some parts of the map, but yeah, soloable. If that's GW2's idea of soloable, they know where they can shove it.

Subscription based games encourage people to play for years by constantly leading them with higher and higher bars to achieve, and making them repeatedly do certain actions, like grinding.

GW1 has capped the max level and max gear, grinding and titles are largely optional, or give a small competitive advantage. Because they have no incentive to bore their customers with grinding, or to create an arms race.

GW2 is announced to be subscription-free, but they have also announced a high level cap/unlimited level, and not a lot about gear "tiers".

How they will marry the two ideas together is the question. A high level cap will also make leveling alternate characters a hard thing, something I am glad GW1 does not have.

Buster · Sep 21, 2007, 07:42 AM // 07:42

GW2 will be a major improvement than what we have now. Persistent world which means it will improve the social aspect of the game. I do like instancing for some things but overall most gamers prefer a persistent world i believe.

We really don't know how the other stuff is oging to work yet so way too early to comment. For now I'll just keep enjoying what we have until we get closer to GW2.

Bryant Again · Sep 21, 2007, 08:08 AM // 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

GW2 will be a major improvement than what we have now. Persistent world which means it will improve the social aspect of the game. I do like instancing for some things but overall most gamers prefer a persistent world i believe.

Agreed. Instancing does have its perks, but it completely shuts off any sociality: Once you're out of the outpost, it's only you and whoever's on your guild and friendlist. And again, it's been stated that there will be persistancy, but it didn't say where or how.