Curse

Lord of the Nazgul · Mar 19, 2006, 05:42 AM // 05:42

Heres the link to the picture of the border and map of Cantha:

http://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cantha8kl.jpg

Red Locust · Mar 19, 2006, 06:53 AM // 06:53

Why do I get the feeling that the 12v12 fights are going to consist of a few order necros and an whole mess of warriors. Pretty tough to match that kind of damage.

Ensign · Mar 19, 2006, 09:34 AM // 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Locust

Why do I get the feeling that the 12v12 fights are going to consist of a few order necros and an whole mess of warriors. Pretty tough to match that kind of damage.

That's why they're broken up into teams of 4, both for party formation and scaling purposes. If they allowed 12 man party formation you'd see an environment dominated by global effects (Heal Party, Aegis, Order of Pain) and impossible to stop spikes. If each global effect and target call only goes to 4 people, things will play out in ways much more similar to normalcy.

Peace,
-CxE

Fantus · Mar 19, 2006, 06:16 PM // 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Yeah, I saw that, and I'm really skeptical of that system if it's true. *IF* this is true, that only a controlling *alliance* can access a challenge mission, and *IF* there are 20 cities with elite missions, and *IF* a given alliance only controls one city, and *IF* each alliance has the full 10 guilds, and *IF* each of those guilds was filled to the brim with 100 members, that gives a total of 20,000 people access to these 'elite' missions. Under a best case scenario. With over a million copies of the game sold, and very likely even more with Factions coming out, that's less than 2% of the population with access to even a single 'elite' mission. If you thought the favor system was bad (and yes, I think the favor system is pretty freaking bad) you haven't seen anything yet.

I simply cannot imagine a system like that remaining in place for long if those zones are supposed to be the best PvE content. With over 98% of the population worldwide completely shut off from *any* top PvE content, the public outcry would be deafening.

*IF* that's true (and if the Gamespy article is remotely reflecting the truth, it DOES seem like that's exactly what they have in mind), Anet is going to dwarf one of the worst ideas in computer gaming history (the Worlds at War/Favor concept) by a system that's worse by several magnitudes. I'd also take a "let's give Factions a chance and see what happens" stance on it, but since Anet so far never actually agreed that the favor idea is a bad one, I am EXTREMELY sceptical right now. Creating exclusive game content for the most elite of all elite players and locking the rest of the game's population out of that content probably forever - I have no idea how the responsible people at Anet could even LISTEN to somebody coming up with such an idea.

What will probably happen is the strongest of the strongest guilds banding together and shutting off everyone else from those areas forever. With the favor system, access to UW and FoW was at least granted to less elite players on a random basis (some PvP teams from their territories winning HoH). An average player never has and never will be able to win HoH, but at least the favor concept didn't end in a total lockout from UW and FoW for those players.

I still hope the article at Gamespy is just a piece of fiction. I still hope that Factions will not end up being the most elitist computer game ever. I still hope that members of non elite guilds will be able to see and enjoy ALL of the new content and not only the "Underdog Section". I still hope that Anet is not going to make the mother of all colossal mistakes in computer game development. If I wouldn't have that hope, I'd actually cancel my preorder for Factions right now.

Shanaeri Rynale · Mar 19, 2006, 06:44 PM // 18:44

People have compare these elite areas to FOW/UW. Now while it's true that FoW/UW comprise about 5% of the games content it's also true that Fow/UW=95% of the money made in game. That's the real motivation. People hate Cartels, profiteering and being excluded. I suspect GWF will bring all 3.

The AN defintition of optional is an odd one as always. Something is not optional if you have no choice in it. It's enforced.

Now people call these areas a bonus area, and I guess if you want to complete the storyline they are, but if you look at the PvE metagame as a whole it is clear that in order to maximise money making potential, skill point attainment, create a PvE challenge they are not a bonus area at all.

It's true we have no idea how these areas will work, and it's true AN know more about game design than all of us put together. But somehow, something in me says this is a very bad idea. They did'nt listen and refused to act(or even tell us a way around the favor system that had been in game since the start) and I suspect they will refuse to listen now.

No one minds people getting victory parades, going to neat little places in town or even a small discount. It's the fact that a small group of people(20 alliances) who will get to 'Phat loot' that worries people so much. Even If they change daily the small guy in a small group of friends will be royally shafted. It would have been better to limit alliance size by population rather than number of Guilds. that way bands of small guilds could at least compete.

I have seen nothing, nothing at all to refute peoples worries, either from the community relations guys or in interviews. Sorry AN but 'it'll be cool' does'nt cut. I think this may be a make or break time for the Guild Wars Francise, and I really really hope it's not break.

shadowfell · Mar 19, 2006, 06:45 PM // 18:45

This is just looking worse and worse....I have never before, and never will again, pre-order a game. I'd rather eat the cancellation charge, than be stuck with this 70 dollar nightmare in the making.

But on second thought.. I'm curious. If it turns out to suck, there are plenty of other games out there that can easily gain my interest over what I fear this game is going to be based on the article.. but what does it matter to AN, you buy the game anyhow, and even if you don't like it, and leave the game for good, they have already gotten your money... what difference does it matter to them if you come or go.

Ken Dei · Mar 19, 2006, 09:00 PM // 21:00

I have great faith in A.Net, I just read the article, I'm hoping they're extrapolating from limited info. That said, message to A.Net:

If you limit Elite Areas to a few, oversized/overpowered guilds, and exclude small friend based ones, I'll chisel your tombstones myself.

My suggestion is that A.Net dispel some of the speculation NOW. It's close enough to the release date that they can let us know what we're getting. A.Net thrived when GW:P came out because they were open and told us what was going on, they need to start doing that again.

Fantus · Mar 19, 2006, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Dei

I have great faith in A.Net, I just read the article, I'm hoping they're extrapolating from limited info.

The article dated from March 14. AN would have had plenty of time to come out and tell us "that article is BS, don't believe a word". They didn't, right? Maybe because it's exactly what Factions will be.

Awesome Nuke · Mar 19, 2006, 09:50 PM // 21:50

I say this : Just wait next weekend and everything will be clear. If everything is messed up, I'm sure ANet will notice it and fix this up. Just dont panic for now. We've only read interviews and unprecise previews. Let's wait for the real deal, I'm 100% sure we'll be happy with the result

Siren · Mar 19, 2006, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the Nazgul

From what I've read from this article, people think that only one alliance can control a city at a time. From searching the internet and GW Guru, I've read that alliances are only smaller parts of the bigger picture. The alliances (10 guilds max) can choose whether to be in one Canthan Faction, or another (the alliance leader desides).

I've seen pictures of the world with its border of where the two Factions fight one another, and anyone on one of the two Factions that, according to the border, has control of an "elite" mission, anyone on any alliance on any guild has access to that mission. This also goes for any special event in the cities, as I have heard A.Net mention.

Anyways, I'm sure that A.Net has everything under control, and that everyone will have pretty much 50/50 access to all the missions, depending on how much faction your Faction can muster.

Those were my thoughts, too. I don't think the content access is going to be limited to each alliance squad. Each alliance functions as a squad in the larger Faction.

...it basically sounds like the Favor system we have now.

Presently, our "Factions" are Korea, America, Europe. Our "squads" are top guilds.

In Factions, our new Korea, America, Europe will be the Luxons and Kurzicks. In Factions, our top guilds will become alliance squads consisting of 10 guilds. If one of those alliance squads take an outpost (check out the pics one member linked to in this thread), that outpost is available to the squad's entire Faction.

Red Locust · Mar 19, 2006, 10:55 PM // 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

My understanding is that 12v12 won't be 12v12 in the truest sense, but instead 3 allied squads of 4. Global effects won't help allied squads, and you won't be able to see allied health bars or targets.

Otherwise 12v12 would be some pretty boring spiking contests.

Peace,
-CxE

I've never heard of them saying that. So would these 3 allied squads fight beside each other, or on separate battlefields (which wouldn't be much of a 12v12 if you ask me)? If they do fight together, it wouldn't be too hard to get all 12 on one vent channel and coordinate a huge spike.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 19, 2006, 11:05 PM // 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awesome Nuke

I say this : Just wait next weekend and everything will be clear. If everything is messed up, I'm sure ANet will notice it and fix this up. Just dont panic for now. We've only read interviews and unprecise previews. Let's wait for the real deal, I'm 100% sure we'll be happy with the result

As I said before - just how much are we going to be able to divine from a 3 day test, especially when there are limited areas we will be allowed to explore in the game - and can't even do it with our current characters. Essentially, the bulk of the players will barely be able to get out of the tutorial area by the time the event is over. Only the power players will have much time to explore the allowed areas of Cantha, but we've already been told the elite areas will not be accessable. Not to mention the fact that 3 days is hardly long enough to get a decent judgement on how the alliances and Factions will work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Those were my thoughts, too. I don't think the content access is going to be limited to each alliance squad. Each alliance functions as a squad in the larger Faction.

...it basically sounds like the Favor system we have now.

Presently, our "Factions" are Korea, America, Europe. Our "squads" are top guilds.

In Factions, our new Korea, America, Europe will be the Luxons and Kurzicks. In Factions, our top guilds will become alliance squads consisting of 10 guilds. If one of those alliance squads take an outpost (check out the pics one member linked to in this thread), that outpost is available to the squad's entire Faction.

Well, don't you see the problem then, especially for the casual gamer - the player base GW is shooting for? There have been times where a week or even two go by before I log on and play at a time when America has favor. From the info I have thus far read, it's quite possible that a month or two could go by before I am lucky enough to be logged on at a time a mission or quest I want to do becomes available - that's just not a good gaming concept.

Plus, the question of neutrality remains - what content will be accessable by those who do not join alliances or a Faction? What about those players in a guild who would rather remain neutral or join an alliance or Faction other than the one their guild is a member of? Right now, Anet really looks like they're dropping the ball big time on this one.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

zoozoc · Mar 19, 2006, 11:09 PM // 23:09

Hm...intersting article. They didnt really sound like they knew what they were talking about, but who knows, thats why the have the open beta on the 24.

Siren · Mar 19, 2006, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

Well, don't you see the problem then, especially for the casual gamer - the player base GW is shooting for? There have been times where a week or even two go by before I log on and play at a time when America has favor. From the info I have thus far read, it's quite possible that a month or two could go by before I am lucky enough to be logged on at a time a mission or quest I want to do becomes available - that's just not a good gaming concept.

Plus, the question of neutrality remains - what content will be accessable by those who do not join alliances or a Faction? What about those players in a guild who would rather remain neutral or join an alliance or Faction other than the one their guild is a member of? Right now, Anet really looks like they're dropping the ball big time on this one.

I wish I could remember where I'd heard this one line before, but "You're focusing on all the wrong details." Here's why.

How huge is the present map in GW? How many favor-based zones do we have right now? We have two. UW and FoW.

The land of Cantha is going to be a pretty good size, right? How many favor-based zones are we going to have there? Check out the map screenshot link earlier in this thread. Look at those blue and red lines. And some of those lines are encircling particular outposts, correct?

Realistically, then, given the feedback regarding Favor and UW/FoW--feedback which is based on the limited number of favor-based zones presently--how many favor-based zones can we expect to see in Factions? Especially when it seems pretty clear that there are multiple favor-based outposts?

I don't think lack of accessible content is going to be a huge issue. The only way for it to be an issue, I think, is if all of the top guilds in the guild ladder...all of them...ally together. But look at how the game functions now. The top guilds thrive on competition, right? What kind of competition is there when everyone's on one side, and that side is controlling everything? There's zero competition, and pretty much zero reason for even the top guilds to play.

That's why I don't see the concern for lack of accessible content. Unless Ensign comes in and confirms that iQ, Te, and the other top American guilds are in fact going to form one huge alliance with Korea, Taiwan, China, or Europe, or whatever, I think there's going to be plenty of fluidity regarding the lines in Factions.

I don't see your point about neutral players to be terribly responsible, either, because while having a rapport with your guild is desirable, if they're going ahead and allying themselves without the member's consent, or at the very least, without a majority of the guild's consent...why would you want to be in that guild in the first place anyway?

Or if a player wants to be completely neutral and independent? A sort of lone wolf? Is it so easy to exist neutrally today? Is one able to function fully in GW without being in a guild? I tend to view your point as similar to the "soloing the game" idea. GW--and its content down the road I surmise--is designed as a team game, as a guild game. Friends of mine used to want to remain solo, but they realized the importance and advantage of guild-based play.

That's not to say neutral players won't have anything to do in Factions, but the focus of Factions is on alliances, guild-to-guild conflict, etc.

Mordakai · Mar 20, 2006, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowfell

This is just looking worse and worse....I have never before, and never will again, pre-order a game. I'd rather eat the cancellation charge, than be stuck with this 70 dollar nightmare in the making.

$70? Hate it so much, you're buying the CE, eh? (If you're Canadian, I apologize)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowfell

But on second thought.. I'm curious. If it turns out to suck, there are plenty of other games out there that can easily gain my interest over what I fear this game is going to be based on the article.. but what does it matter to AN, you buy the game anyhow, and even if you don't like it, and leave the game for good, they have already gotten your money... what difference does it matter to them if you come or go.

Well, it matters to the extent that if no one buys Chapter 3, Guild Wars goes out of business. Because there are no subscription fees, GW needs to get people to buy the expansions, bottom line.

I've gotten my money's worth with Prophecy, I figure Factions is a freebie gift to Anet.

If it sucks, though, I won't be buying Chapter 3. And I'm sure Anet knows that Factions is a huge deal for them...

Aeon221 · Mar 20, 2006, 08:32 PM // 20:32

"Naturally, the hardcore alliances will get the best real estate. And the smaller alliances? Well, they can visit the cities held by their more-devoted brethren."

"So why would someone want to hold one of the more coveted cities? To get phat loots, of course. Roughly 20 of the cities on the new continent will allow their conquering alliance to embark on "elite quests" that are unique to them. These will be PvE missions of the most hardcore magnitude available, with rewards that, reportedly, will be commensurate with their level of difficulty."

My translation:

If your side captures a city, you will not be able to launch "parade style events" or visit "off limit areas" unless you are part of the specific alliance that nabbed it. However, you will be able to hit the mishes.

These towns seem to work on this assumption: if your side does not control it, you cannot visit it. Therefore, if you can visit it, there must be some sort of reward. In my mind, this means the missions are open to you.

Regarding neutrality:

"Your character's affiliation (and, by extension, your guild and alliance's) isn't a binary choice. Rather, you slowly accumulate reputation with one or both of the factions depending on the quests you perform. Thus, it's possible for groups of players to shift between the two groups, if the one they're affiliated with doesn't suit their fancy."

My translation:

If you want to be neutral, keep your "reputation" levels fairly similar and every little thing gonna be alright.

[All quotations are from the article at the head of this thread]
***

Having been one of the gamers _literally_ screwed over by Firaxis with the Civ 4 launch (bastards still won't refund me for the days I spent making their buggy piece of crap product playable), I'm leery of anything a game company sells these days. And Sid Meier has lost my business for good.

Anet, however, is doing pretty well. The GW launch was flawless (a nearly unprecedented event, even for a company backed by the considerable experience of NCsoft) and GW has since been well maintained. Plus, unlike most other games and communities I've been in, the designers really and truly do care about what the consumers have to say. That is downright freaky!

I'll buy their product, and I won't grudge them the cash for v.3 when it comes out... unless Anet looks to be going under...

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Palidore

Also, in responce to the original post, after looking over pictures from the event in Seattle not too long ago, the way it seems it will work, is that if you do not have control of a certain area, but another alliance in your faction does have it, you can pay a certain amount of faction points, and gain access to it.

Original Posting

Exoudeous · Mar 20, 2006, 09:13 PM // 21:13

I wouldnt get to worked up over this, the person who wrote the article sounds like that really dont know much about guild wars.

Notice how he says "the best skills will drop", well skills dont drop. I think it was more of an assumtion on the part of the writer.

The elite areas are special high level maps. Skill caps are in missions and pve maps

dreamhunk · Mar 21, 2006, 01:58 AM // 01:58

I heared the land mass of Factions is about 2/3 the size of the total landmass in Guild Wars.

quests will actually be more dense together that means no exploring

this from a rideo for games
http://www.gamingsteve.com/podcasts/...2006-03-20.mp3

It goes to explain the rpg in the game and how it works.

I think it might work I am really not sure, I guess there will be rpg after all.

Hanok Odbrook · Mar 21, 2006, 02:17 AM // 02:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

I wish I could remember where I'd heard this one line before, but "You're focusing on all the wrong details." Here's why.

How huge is the present map in GW? How many favor-based zones do we have right now? We have two. UW and FoW.

What's wrong with wanting to log on and play the hour or two I may have one day in the UW and FoW? If I have done all the missions and finished all the quests, then it IS a problem to not be able to use the limited time I have to explore these areas. What you are saying is that I should just run around exploring territory I've already been over and should be happy about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

The land of Cantha is going to be a pretty good size, right? How many favor-based zones are we going to have there? Check out the map screenshot link earlier in this thread. Look at those blue and red lines. And some of those lines are encircling particular outposts, correct?

Realistically, then, given the feedback regarding Favor and UW/FoW--feedback which is based on the limited number of favor-based zones presently--how many favor-based zones can we expect to see in Factions? Especially when it seems pretty clear that there are multiple favor-based outposts?

Again, when I reach the point where I want and/or need to complete quests or missions in those territories or outposts, I get to waste the hour or two I have running around in circles. Unlike some gamers here, I actually like to complete the quests and missions in their proper order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

I don't think lack of accessible content is going to be a huge issue. The only way for it to be an issue, I think, is if all of the top guilds in the guild ladder...all of them...ally together. But look at how the game functions now. The top guilds thrive on competition, right? What kind of competition is there when everyone's on one side, and that side is controlling everything? There's zero competition, and pretty much zero reason for even the top guilds to play.

That's why I don't see the concern for lack of accessible content. Unless Ensign comes in and confirms that iQ, Te, and the other top American guilds are in fact going to form one huge alliance with Korea, Taiwan, China, or Europe, or whatever, I think there's going to be plenty of fluidity regarding the lines in Factions.

I would also find it highly doubtful that all of the top guilds would ally, but for the third time, that doesn't change the fact that I may log in the 4-5 times I have the opportunity to play the game over the course of a week or two, and may not be able to access the areas I need/want to access during those times, which ends up wasting my time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

I don't see your point about neutral players to be terribly responsible, either, because while having a rapport with your guild is desirable, if they're going ahead and allying themselves without the member's consent, or at the very least, without a majority of the guild's consent...why would you want to be in that guild in the first place anyway?

I dunno, maybe because its fun being in the guild? Doesn't change the fact that one member may need to complete Lurzick quests while others may need to complete the other factions quests. So if the majority of the guild votes one way, the rest of the people in the guild are out of luck for who knows how long? No thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siren

Or if a player wants to be completely neutral and independent? A sort of lone wolf? Is it so easy to exist neutrally today? Is one able to function fully in GW without being in a guild? I tend to view your point as similar to the "soloing the game" idea. GW--and its content down the road I surmise--is designed as a team game, as a guild game. Friends of mine used to want to remain solo, but they realized the importance and advantage of guild-based play.

That's not to say neutral players won't have anything to do in Factions, but the focus of Factions is on alliances, guild-to-guild conflict, etc.

So neutrality is a bad thing? In the history of the world, no one was ever neutral? I formed my guild on the basis of Knowlege and the persuit of peace. If we were a strictly a role-playing guild, there would absolutely no way that the guild would partake in another country's war or even think about choosing sides. The focus of Factions may be on the alliances, but I still have a right to play the game as I feel best represents my style and the fundamental ideals of my guild. To force me choose a side or else, does not benefit those players who would rather remain neutral and care not to participate in PvP, and that will end in a result that will not benefit GW.

Hanok Odbrook
Real Millennium Group Guild
Truth * Knowledge * Peace

mqstout · Mar 21, 2006, 02:28 AM // 02:28

I'm with Hanok Odbrook here. My friends and I (we basically only ever play with each other a rare couple hours a week) regularly get screwed on favor. We've had a huge percentage of the time we had set aside to play entirely evaporate because America didn't have favor, so, we simply couldn't do anything...

Some of them went back to WoW for the evening, while I loaded up Civ4 instead, since GW was out of the question.

No, taking up PvP play is not an option.