Curse

Sword Hammer Axe · Jul 01, 2009, 11:53 PM // 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by domicro

Please take on your mind all features developers have stated for gw2 before reading this post.
I noticed that arenanet was discussing to have 100 levels or unlimited levels.
They probably already decided, but here is my IDEA :

PVE :
1) 100 levels because that way players get the best feel of progression.

I know that gw2 will have expansions instead, but they can still make campain to be a part of what you get in an expansion, the difference would be :
-no tutorial area
-no "begginer" zones
-no new classes
-each expansion would add levels to the game so that doing quests and missions in it actually makes sense.
-I know that the storyline isnt linear in gw2, but instead has story arcs, and a story arc doesnt depend on another story arc, and you could complete story arcs in any order you like, regardless of your level. It means that when you complete a quest or a mission you gain certain percent of exp you need to level up. If you are level 1 and complete quest "A", you gain 20% of exp you need to level up, but you would also gain 20% if you are level 99. Each story arc is a chain of missions and quests, missions and quests in it are being unlocked in certain order, you unlock 1 mission or quest for a story arc "A" when you complete 1 mission or quest in story arc "A". My Idea would be that once you complete all story arcs in a campain, then you get "final story arc" unlocked, which is basically the ending for each story arc in a campaign, that means that all story arcs share same ending of a their stories, which is actually a big conclusion and ending of the whole campaign.
-each expansion would have 1 campaign
-gw2 without expansions has 1 campaign
Each expansion would add additional levels to the game so that completing quests and missions makes sense. If you complete first campaign, without repeating any quest or a mission, participating in world pvp or in dungeons, you would be level 100.

2) Players would not gain experience by killing monsters.

3) Players would not gain money and items (loot) by killing monsters.

4) When your party interacts with a monster, that monster becomes "reserved" for your party. It means that only players from your party can interact with it for as long as its reserved. When a monster leaves its "original spot" for a certain radius, it is no longer reserved. "Original spot" is a spot where the monster was at the moment your party reserved it.

5) Since the character development would be the same as in other mmorpgs,
monsters would have to have levels, even knowing that quests and missions would not depend on your level.

6) Players would gain experience, money and items as a reward for completing a quest or a mission. Of course they would get full reward if done the quest or a mission alone, or if completed in a party, the award for each party member would be determined on what which party member actually did in that quest or a mission. First time you compete a quest or a mission, it is in easy mode. All quests and missions would be repeatable. When you decide to repeat missions or quests, you would only gain experience if it is in easy mode. If you want to do a mission or quest in the hard mode, you have to complete the whole campaign in easy mode first. In hard mode you get money and items from them. However, if you complete the same mission in hard mode twice you would get only experience the second time. You could repeat any quest or mission any time since you already have all missions and quests unlocked from before.

7) Dungeons : Instanced, rules 2) and 3) not valid. To be honest, dungeons are only played for farming, but i decided not to bash developers ideas for gw2 so i complimented it instead.

8) You would gain experience by participating in world pvp.

Reason for this kind of system :
I would like to play an MMO as a game, not as everyday job.
Basically, MMOs these days have gameplay which is more like an everyday job for a player than a game. I mean on grind. Even if the game has like so many quests that you dont need to grind to level up or has only few levels or no levels at all, you must still farm for money.

Interessting ideas. You got the idea of leveling from Oblivion? The mission and quest XP would be a nice alternative to titles. If you see a player at level 100 (if that's max) then you would know that character has done all the missions and quests.

However what should also be mentioned is that if low level characters and high level ones should not be too far apart in combat abilities (even if there's a companion) then they should make the level up rewards different than more health and such. I like the current skillpoint system, but of course there has to be a golden middleway. I don't have any suggestions for those rewards but I suppose a lot of other people do :P

domicro · Jul 02, 2009, 01:13 PM // 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sword Hammer Axe

Interessting ideas. You got the idea of leveling from Oblivion? The mission and quest XP would be a nice alternative to titles. If you see a player at level 100 (if that's max) then you would know that character has done all the missions and quests.

However what should also be mentioned is that if low level characters and high level ones should not be too far apart in combat abilities (even if there's a companion) then they should make the level up rewards different than more health and such. I like the current skillpoint system, but of course there has to be a golden middleway. I don't have any suggestions for those rewards but I suppose a lot of other people do :P

Hey! Thanks for comment, I have updated my post btw.

Obrien Xp · Jul 02, 2009, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tender Wolf

I've got a suggestion for possible expansion packs:

There have been a few threads asking if Elona and Cantha will be a part of GW2; the main storyline is currently known to be in Tyria. Perhaps ANet will release expansion with Cantha and Elona, and also Utopia.

With each expansion, instead of new professions (because hopefully all 10 will be kept to begin with), there would be new races. Tengu for Cantha, Centaurs for Elona, and something else for Utopia.

I've mostly been expecting that to the point that I always talk about my Tengu char that I'll make after first expansion. Forget centaur, Heket are 4tw!

Here's a bit of a suggestion, make all underground and mists areas that have a constant map (like any other explorable area) have a larger map, instead of re-exploring the area to use the mission map, put it as an add-on to the world map.

Boondocksaints · Jul 03, 2009, 11:59 PM // 23:59

Currently in GW1, we only have the option of crafting the armor according to what class we are. But what if I had a warrior but liked Dervish armor? Or even Elementalist's robes?

Getting rid of class restrictions on armor type for GW2 would be a fantastic idea IMO that would benefit both the game developers as well as the players.

For game developers- they would not have to individually design armors for every single class multiplied by all the different races. That is certainly a daunting task.

For players- they have a much greater variety of armors to choose from.

So instead of class, armors should be race specific. For instance, a human warrior can have plate armor or robes or whatever they choose as their look. This allows great flexibility in their look.

Another suggestion that this theme can be carried over to is weapons. Why can't a spell caster wield a magic sword that acts like a wand? Or a shield that acts as a focus item. Right now, the variety of weapons is skewed toward the melee classes (more specifically warrior) Because honestly, how many variations of a staff can you have?

Undead King Knight · Jul 04, 2009, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Really why would a sword be shooting orbs at people?

Sindo · Jul 04, 2009, 01:06 AM // 01:06

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
This goes against any kind of logic.

Shewmake · Jul 04, 2009, 01:08 AM // 01:08

I think a the Bo Staff shouldn't be a spellcaster's weapon since that's not what it is/was used for, but I'm not sure I agree with the amount of flexability you're looking for. I don't think a shield should be a focus. I do agree with the armor flexability, though (and for that matter, physical appearance completely).

And I agree with the person above that swords should not be used as spellcasting weapons.

Icy The Mage · Jul 04, 2009, 01:09 AM // 01:09

Because wielding a sword / shield / hammer / w/e allows you to see in PvP what you're up against before you actually get to them, or if your allies / enemies are intelligent etc...

Every thing being able to have every functionality is incredibly stupid and would be enormously lame for PvP.

Sindo · Jul 04, 2009, 01:16 AM // 01:16

Does it make sense for a warrior to wear robes while fighting in close combat? Should a monk, while running around in the backline, wear plate mail? How does this idea make any sense at all?

Mad Lord of Milk · Jul 04, 2009, 01:21 AM // 01:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyFiftyFive

Because wielding a sword / shield / hammer / w/e allows you to see in PvP what you're up against before you actually get to them, or if your allies / enemies are intelligent etc...

Every thing being able to have every functionality is incredibly stupid and would be enormously lame for PvP.

Excellent point.

Leave the system as is, the only thing I want to see is a preview of your character's look at the armor trader so you don't end up cursing ANet for your new, expensive, and crappy-looking armor.

Songbringer · Jul 04, 2009, 01:23 AM // 01:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Lord of Milk

Excellent point.

Leave the system as is, the only thing I want to see is a preview of your character's look at the armor trader so you don't end up cursing ANet for your new, expensive, and crappy-looking armor.

/agreed

Wish I would have looked at elite sin vabbi on wiki before I bought it. Then I realised I like other ones alot more T_T

Shewmake · Jul 04, 2009, 01:24 AM // 01:24

I don't like how you have to be so bulky when you're a warrior.

[DE] · Jul 04, 2009, 02:32 AM // 02:32

Non-class restricted armor only makes battlefield awareness a lot tougher. Each class having distinct armor allows you to quickly look at your screen and see who is where, what's out of position, etc. If an entire team could dress the exact same it would make picking out the monks, and other squishes a lot tougher in PvP. You'd have to tab through your opponents or figure out who is who purely based on skill animations.

While having non-class specific armor might sound like a good idea, it folds when you try to bring it into PvP, where battlefield awareness and taking cues from other people's armor is an important way of identifying whose is who.

/notsigned

jazilla · Jul 04, 2009, 04:12 AM // 04:12

this just seems purely cosmetic to me which is fine. that being said, what does a caster do when they want a melee weapon or a shield to actually be just that? you would almost have to have a cosmetic inventory window where you could put the armor in that window and it would appear on the character, but not have the armor rating. i like it if its something like that.

KoKoS · Jul 04, 2009, 06:42 AM // 06:42

warrior has 80AL coz his armor is heavy and metalic and stuff..
ele has 60AL coz his armor is just robes..

a warrrior wearing robes has 60AL? o.o who would buy robes then?

MagmaRed · Jul 04, 2009, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Your topic title mentions GW2, so why did you ignore the sticky topic at the top of the page?

draxynnic · Jul 05, 2009, 05:57 AM // 05:57

Rumour is GW2 is already going to decouple armour and profession. However, the armour worn will influence those things that armour influences.

So you could have a warrior running around in monk robes and your monk running around in plate armour... if you like your warrior having the GW2 equivalent of 60AL and your Monk having the GW2 equivalent of 20 energy and 2 regen.

1 up and 2 down · Jul 05, 2009, 08:54 AM // 08:54

Here is your answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guild Wars 2 Wiki

Any news on armor, equipment or loot?

Armor and weapons will no longer be profession specific. It has been stated that equipment will be a more significant part of PvE and World PvP gameplay.

This was taken from: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guil.../FAQ#Character

/close

dusanyu · Jul 05, 2009, 11:35 AM // 11:35

Guild wars Does not need to Be a Korean MMO bad idea

Equipment Treadmills stink

Tenkrad · Jul 05, 2009, 03:10 PM // 15:10

after having played AoC for a while now for a change of pace, i am waiting for GW2 eagerly. I apologize if the ideas have already been brought up but i dont want to use my whole afternoon reading 81 pages of suggestions. here goes:

1- quest sharing: anytime when a group is together and as long as its not the end of a quest chain. simple but a huge help and when i saw this i instantly wished i had access to this in GW when questing.

2-class structure: in my opinion this has been the biggest flaw in the group system (and possibly the entire game) with GW, the isolation of certain classes for certain areas (although Ursan did try and remedy this) in favor of fast and efficient cookie-cutter/copy and paste builds. AoC has a good setup so that individual classes arent left out in any part of the game. a healer is a healer (irregardless if its a monk or a rit for example), a tank is a tank (whether its a warrior or a derv) and the rest do damage or support+damage. they all bring something to the table but are individuals within their own grouping. i really, really like the fact that in AoC the common chat is only filled with "need healer for group" or "need dps for raid". very rarely is it a class specific request unless they already have one and need the other. unlike GW, i've yet to be rejected from a group based on the class i've chosen to play. there is alot more to it but this is the basic idea.

3-combat system: the system is quite good in AoC for melee and i rather like it. its a bit more involving and gets you into the fight a bit more than GW does. casters are the same for both GW and AoC.

I'm not advocating for AoC. i do like quite a few of the aspects of AoC has but it has ALOT of bugs and wont even come close to comparing to GW 75% of the time. just thought i would share a few of the things i would really like to see in GW2.