Curse

Tactical-Dillusions · Oct 24, 2005, 10:07 AM // 10:07

I'd prefer it if only each town had a portal and monsters respawned. This would still prevent kill-stealing etc but would make the game appear more "real" because you wouldn't be crossing unrealistic barriers every ten minutes.
The segregation of the world into so many pieces takes away from the "immersed in a world" feeling.

RTSFirebat · Oct 24, 2005, 10:33 AM // 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactical-Dillusions

I'd prefer it if only each town had a portal and monsters respawned. This would still prevent kill-stealing etc but would make the game appear more "real" because you wouldn't be crossing unrealistic barriers every ten minutes.
The segregation of the world into so many pieces takes away from the "immersed in a world" feeling.

Yep you pretty much summed up my feelings.

I like the Instances since the keep the game free-to-play and also work pretty well..

But in some of the later areas it's annoying. Since the max you could have in a area ranges from 4-8 people, areas just seem really empty.

All you seem your teammates and a bunch of mindless NPCs that justsay "hello", or just turn and stare at you and do nothing. Kind of lame if you ask me.

I just wish a.net would implement one or two really huge areas were many players can be running about in fighting monsters and stuff... even if it was just one area!

Fantus · Oct 24, 2005, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightOwl

I like a persistant world because, well...I'm cruel and enjoy the pk environment, I suppose.

Hm, no offense, but people like you are the reason why I so love the instancing idea, I guess. If I would enjoy dealing with brainless PKers I'd play Everquest and company.

In general I think the instancing of GW is the best idea ever implemented in an online RPG.

TomD22 · Oct 24, 2005, 11:24 AM // 11:24

GW instancing is GW. I realise that, and realise that it's not really an MMORPg at all, but a traditional story/mission based RPG that happens to allow you to play with other humans, rather than turn-based controlling your party or using AI. (leaving the PvP aside for the mo).

But, it would be great for GW to have a / a couple of big persistent pve areas, and maybe one big pvp one. You'd know going into them that there might be killstealing, or in the pvp one that you might get ganged up on. But i think it would be great fun to have some more "chaotic" areas which you could go to, as a lot of GW feels very set and mapped out. Plus which, those kind of areas can feel much more like an immersive community. It would also help forming parties - you'd be able to see a sensible party by how they were acting, and they'd know whether to add you or not based on how you had acted. The PvP area would be a bit crazy, and i'm not sure how well it would work - it might just fill with warriors. But on the other hand, a very tight spike team of elems might form in there and do well. But it would be fun to see. And of course, keep the 'don't lose anything when you die' idea of GW.

Elistan Theocrat · Oct 24, 2005, 12:41 PM // 12:41

Great responses people. I 'm still unsure as to which I really prefer. I do agree with Sanji that its nice to be able to load up on henchies and set myself to offline and just play without interference from other players. I'm not bothered so much by the not seeing the city as I'm walking up to it bit. I actually like GW's environments quite a lot and I think they do a pretty good job of making them attractive and at least occasionally interactive.

Still, with the world being fragmented the way it is I do feel the loss of "epicness" for lack of a better term. EQ was my first MMO. That game felt huge. GW may actually be nearly the same size if not a little larger than the original landmasses in EQ, but even if you strive to uncover all of the world map, nobody travels by foot when they dont have to. (including me) the map travel is very convienent and I do like it, but it does shrink the world considerably in feel. I usually get a chuckle when I hear about a "pro" runner. I'm not saying it doesnt take practice in this game, Yet a run from beacon's to forge has got nothing on a run from Neocron city to Military Base. (from the game, Neocron) Where the trip is long an dangerous even in a vehicle and youre just as likely as not to run into players from a rival faction who want to kill you because your name appears red on thier screen. (game had fully open pvp, most hardcore pvp i've played)

Shrug, I'll keep on playing guildwars, and even though I've still got the discs, i'll probably not go back to EQ/DAoC/Neocron/AC. I've never played WoW and dont really have any interest in doing so, as much as I loved WC 1-3 I dont care for the concept of a wc mmo. I'm pretty sure that what keeps me in guildwars are 2 things.

1. It's not costing me more money to play it than to buy it.
2. More importantly, I can (maybe rarely do) but I can log into the game for an hour and have fun, the Instanced world means that I never have to do things that I sometimes had to do in EQ, like meet up with my guild on a certain real life date that we had reserved (on the website) a high level area for a raid that might last 3-5 hours or more. And never do I have to wait out another party hunting something I want to hunt. There were times I'd have to wait hours just to get a spot in a party hunting certain desireable mobs.

So I guess I miss some of the great storytelling type moments from the larger feeling persistant worlds, but I must prefer instanced cause here I am still playing GW strong after 6 mo.

NightOwl · Oct 24, 2005, 02:06 PM // 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantus

Hm, no offense, but people like you are the reason why I so love the instancing idea, I guess. If I would enjoy dealing with brainless PKers I'd play Everquest and company.

In general I think the instancing of GW is the best idea ever implemented in an online RPG.

None taken on the first part, but I most certainly am not brainless. It's not exactly easy running solo at groups of people and expecting to win (no, I didn't pick on the low-lowbies, mainly just people of a level to provide resistance). Taking a max level character against level 5s or what not might require no brains, but that was definately beneath me. I wanted the fight, not an easy win...and please come back with your high level characters, I'll wait!

Anyhow, to the topic. Persistant allows for more raw pvp, sometimes you're the prepared one, sometimes I am. From my experiance in another mmo with a persistant world, it brings the guilds closer together when they have to defend their home. Here, no risk of losing anything other than a match, which is completely consentual on both parts. Note how there aren't any significant political debates, threats from guild A that if guild B doesn't mind it's own business they'll *insert appropriate significant retaliatory action here*.

But that's a different game, and I'm reasonable satisfied with the way GW works. At least it's peaceful.

Dax · Oct 24, 2005, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactical-Dillusions

I'd prefer it if only each town had a portal and monsters respawned. This would still prevent kill-stealing etc but would make the game appear more "real" because you wouldn't be crossing unrealistic barriers every ten minutes.
The segregation of the world into so many pieces takes away from the "immersed in a world" feeling.

Immersion. thats the word I was looking for previously.

Yes you'd definately have to have respawning monsters, that should be required. As for Kill stealing and Pk-ing, there are ways to make it fair and have consequences for your actions....or have different servers.

But having said that, I personally find dealing with these issues part of the challenge. I there are 2 parties in a area, it is kind of fun jockeying for position to get the mob. It definately would add tons more strategy. As long as they respawn of course.

As far as coming arcoss jerks, you get plenty of them in cities.

Persistance could also mean a time sytem, day and night. That could also add alot to the mix.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightOwl

But that's a different game, and I'm reasonable satisfied with the way GW works. At least it's peaceful.

It's called Guild Wars....hehehe

Fantus · Oct 24, 2005, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dax

It's called Guild Wars....hehehe

Indeed - and the cool thing about it is that the "Wars" part is not mandatory. I like PvP, but I like even more that it only happens when ALL involved parties want it, as opposed to PKing which is usually be forced upon on. Which again is why instancing is the coolest imagineable solution to pretty much all known problems in online RPGs:

- PKing
- kill stealing
- loot stealing
- griefing

Instancing got rid of ALL those quirks, maybe with the sole exception that griefing is still possible in towns and when you are unlucky enough to have invited the griefer into your party.

BrandonIT · Oct 24, 2005, 07:54 PM // 19:54

I'd like to add my thought into the debate:

I believe "instanced" worlds also make for a more 'casual player'-friendly game.

In "persistent" worlds, often many things are happening around the clock, at all times. As NightOwl said, things are always changing as ground is won/loss, or the crafting items are changing/moving (as in SWG). Often, if you are out of the loop for more than a week, things may have changed drastically while you were gone. This is what is required as if everything stayed the same for long periods of time, things would get boring very quickly.

In GW's "instanced" worlds, I can count on the fact that should I be suddenly out of the game for a couple of weeks, the "Iron Mines of Moladune" will not have been taken over by the Shining Blade and my characters weapons will not have rusted/decayed. I enjoy NOT having to worry about upkeep, maintenance, insurance, whatever and the ability to pick up the game, run through a mission for a couple of hours, then drop out and not worry about making sure everything was perfect when I left.

I love the ability to just pick up in Guild Wars for a few hours every few days and still feel like I am a part of the game, and not just a casual bystander.

Xonic · Oct 24, 2005, 08:03 PM // 20:03

BrandonIT, what you mentioned has very little to do with persistent / instanced.

BrandonIT · Oct 24, 2005, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xonic

BrandonIT, what you mentioned has very little to do with persistent / instanced.

O.k., would you care to elaborate or would you like me to just pick up my bits and go home?

It's still my opinion though that certain world types lend themselves better certain game designs and philosophies. I still think Guild Wars was designed to be far more casual-friendly than any other MMO out there that I am familiar with. As such, I think the "Instanced" worlds deliver this experience much better than a "Persistent" world.

But that's the last I'll say on the matter. You may resume your regularly scheduled banter.

Xonic · Oct 24, 2005, 09:06 PM // 21:06

a game with instanced zones can have faction-take-overs. i.e the underworld in GW. whichever faction, korean, euro, or american wins HoH takes over those zones for that region.

a game with instanced zones can have item decay. i.e diablo/diablo 2. all the game maps are instanced, and they have item decay.

I am not saying I don't agree with what you say. but what you say has very little to do with instance vs presistent designs.

PieXags · Oct 24, 2005, 09:15 PM // 21:15

I just wish they had a SEEMINGLY persistant enviornment, preferably a PvP enviornment. I wish there was a "zone" you could go into, and it was just a massive landscape with little "outposts" (a few buildings and tents and what not) that weren't different zones, just a huge enviornment for PvP, two sides, each with their own small little "towns" on each side or whatever. Before RYL went to crap, the most fun thing about it was seeing thirty people charging over the landscape up to a nearby enemy force in a little town and fighting it out there, it was just awesome. I think GW could pull off certain bits of persistancy really well, being that 20 is the highest lvl (no lvl ganking). I just get annoyed by the whole "Alright, sweet, -load time-, aw crap -load time-, we won! -load time-, ...-load time-. "

I gets annoying, in places like tombs or something. When I beat a team I want to be like "WOOOOOOOT!" And then turn around and see a reinforcement of peoples charging after our team...then WAR!!!

I just think that'd be neato.

Xonic · Oct 24, 2005, 09:38 PM // 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

I just wish they had a SEEMINGLY persistant enviornment, preferably a PvP enviornment. I wish there was a "zone" you could go into, and it was just a massive landscape with little "outposts" (a few buildings and tents and what not) that weren't different zones, just a huge enviornment for PvP, two sides, each with their own small little "towns" on each side or whatever. Before RYL went to crap, the most fun thing about it was seeing thirty people charging over the landscape up to a nearby enemy force in a little town and fighting it out there, it was just awesome. I think GW could pull off certain bits of persistancy really well, being that 20 is the highest lvl (no lvl ganking). I just get annoyed by the whole "Alright, sweet, -load time-, aw crap -load time-, we won! -load time-, ...-load time-. "

I gets annoying, in places like tombs or something. When I beat a team I want to be like "WOOOOOOOT!" And then turn around and see a reinforcement of peoples charging after our team...then WAR!!!

I just think that'd be neato.

you mean WoW, haa

and btw, GW load time is the shortest of all the games I've played.

Jakerius · Oct 24, 2005, 09:42 PM // 21:42

With persistant worlds come more griefers, but with instanced worlds, it takes out a lot of opportunity for helping others/grouping with others outside of towns.

I prefer the Instanced though, much more xp

PieXags · Oct 24, 2005, 11:32 PM // 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xonic

you mean WoW, haa

and btw, GW load time is the shortest of all the games I've played.

I don't know why people always say "go play WoW" or something when I ask for war-style PvP, hasn't anyone noticed that it's a standard for most all sorts of online RPGs? I don't think GW should do away with their current system, I think there should be more than that one arena-style option, there SHOULD be a large-scale war PvP style in GW, because GW and the way it's played can pull it off BETTER than can WoW.

MSecorsky · Oct 24, 2005, 11:37 PM // 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by PieXags

I don't know why people always say "go play WoW" or something when I ask for war-style PvP, hasn't anyone noticed that it's a standard for most all sorts of online RPGs? I don't think GW should do away with their current system, I think there should be more than that one arena-style option, there SHOULD be a large-scale war PvP style in GW, because GW and the way it's played can pull it off BETTER than can WoW.

With it being so server based, I wonder how heavy a load it would prove to be to do that. I suspect there is a logstical reason that things were capped at eight.

Besides, you start getting into 40 v 40 or whatever... forget balance. Imagine the spiking that could happen... players would instantly turn to ash.

Imagine a 40 monk healing ball?

How long before 35 IWay/5 necro teams pop up?

I need a hug.

Elistan Theocrat · Oct 25, 2005, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSecorsky

With it being so server based, I wonder how heavy a load it would prove to be to do that. I suspect there is a logstical reason that things were capped at eight.

Besides, you start getting into 40 v 40 or whatever... forget balance. Imagine the spiking that could happen... players would instantly turn to ash.

Imagine a 40 monk healing ball?

How long before 35 IWay/5 necro teams pop up?

I need a hug.

40 v 40??

*shudder* the fight would never ever end, theres no way either team could prevent enough resurrections to prolong the fight unto infinity.

Along the lines of the conversation about griefers and PK and the fact that pvp in this game is always consentual. It reminds me of the best PVP i've ever played MMO style. DAoC.

In that game you chose a realm, and short of a consentual duel between two players (something i'd love to see in GW) then realm-mates never have the ablility to directly harm realm-mates. There were three "training" battlegrounds where players could team with thier realm-mates and challenge players from the other realms, then there was the big leagues, between all of the realms there were frontier zones in which there were outposts to lay siege to or ambushes to be laid for unwary folks of other reams. All in all it was really quite nicely done. The problem was the insane experience treadmill action. It always amused me to hear people cry about grind in guild wars after playing that game.

Dax · Oct 25, 2005, 01:14 AM // 01:14

You guys are assuming though that a persistant world has to have PvP, but you can have persistant non-pvp world as well and keep arena PvP action. Just like you can have a good crafting system and at the same time not have participate.

Even if you did have PvP you could also make the consequenses pretty nasty.

Granted this is a conversation just for $hits and giggles. They aren't gonna change it because they'd hafta redo the entire game just about.

Tactical-Dillusions · Oct 25, 2005, 02:17 AM // 02:17

If anyone tried PK'ing me, i would cream them. It's that simple.

However, as the game stands, they won't have to worry about picking on the wrong guy.