Curse

Metanoia · Apr 17, 2006, 02:34 AM // 02:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGJustice

...[snip]...

1) Guild Wars is/isn't an MMORPG
Boy, this one gets fun. On the one hand, it isn't an MMO as every area is instanced, and even towns are limited to the number of people that can be in each district. On the other hand, how often can you play with people living in different countries at the same time? If you go to the International districts, you can team up with people from every country in the world at the same time. You could, in theory, chat to every single player in the whole game that's online at the same time you are.

I honestly think that this one comes down to personal belief, but maybe I'm just crazy?...[snip]...

Let's apply this to Warcraft 3.

On the one hand, it isn't an MMO as every area is instanced, and even towns are limited to the number of people that can be in each district.
- Towns become chat channels, districts become actual games be they hosted customs or ladder melee.

On the other hand, how often can you play with people living in different countries at the same time? If you go to the International districts, you can team up with people from every country in the world at the same time. You could, in theory, chat to every single player in the whole game that's online at the same time you are.
- This applies to Warcraft 3 as much as it does to GW... and pretty much every other on-line game there is.

GW is a pseudo-MMORPG at best. I can't recall ever seeing anyone state that it's a MMORPG whos definition of MMO couldn't be applied to practically every online game ever created.
So, perhaps this is another common misconception: Massive(ly), as in MMORPG = Anything to do with the actual number of players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmorpg

Sorry if that seemed like I pounced on you or something. I don't mean anything by it. You just raised a topic and since this is about clearing up misconceptions... well, y'know.

About aborption...

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

The effects of the ascalon/knights armor will stack with the runes. Ascalon and knight armor absorption do not stack with each other. Thus, the maximum absorption a single player can get is -5 from a rune/armor combination.

Shields that have the –x damage modifier work in a similar fashion to absorption granted by the ascalon/knight armor. This effect stacks with the rune/armor absorption effect.

Absorption granted by armor(shields included) applies to all damage regardless of where it came from*. Absorption granted from runes, however, is only applied to damage that comes from a weapon attack (not spells).

*Assuming it doesn't bypass armour entirely.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Furious

A big misconception is that elementalists are good at damage.

That's opinion.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...d.php?t=113319
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...d.php?t=141050

I think that is what Mister Furious is referring to.