Curse

KZaske · Apr 16, 2012, 05:28 AM // 05:28

Single play mode was introduced with heros.

Mintha Syl · Apr 16, 2012, 08:58 AM // 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by KZaske

Single play mode was introduced with heros.

Another one who doesn't understand what the op meant...

On topic, of course that's something many would want but of course only when the servers are being closed, not years before.
So a bit too early...

KZaske · Apr 16, 2012, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mintha Syl

Another one who doesn't understand what the op meant...

On topic, of course that's something many would want but of course only when the servers are being closed, not years before.
So a bit too early...

Oh I understood what the OP wanted. I just chose to ignore it. What the OP wanted would cost as much as the developement of GW:Eye of the North with no finicial reward for ArenaNet, something that has about as much chance of happening as an ice cube surviving for a week in a lava flow. The mechanics of the game itself would need to be entirely rewritten.
There have been a couple of "home brew" servers, I am not sure of thier status but they might serve the OP's needs if he/she can find one.

Hanok Odbrook · Apr 17, 2012, 03:59 PM // 15:59

You never know. I have seen this request come up several times over the years (and have tossed the hint out myself on occasion). Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to paying extra to be able to get a true off-line single-player version of the game - especially if it could be done in a way that allows up to download our characters and progress in the game so we can pick up at the same point where we left off.

I would like to think that with today's technology something like this would be possible, and if anyone can pull it off, it would be the folks at Anet. This is the quandary we run into with on-line only games now. Being from the old school, it's nice to be able to pick and re-install/play any of the myriad of games I have bought over the years. Not so much with MMOs, which is the primary reason I avoided them until GW came out - at least I would only be out the initial $50 cost of the game. Low and behold, four accounts and countless store transactions later and that investment has grown quite a bit. It would be nice to be able to capitalize on it more, even if it meant dishing out a few more bucks. GW1 is certainly a game worth coming back to for years on end.

Hanok

aspi · Apr 18, 2012, 08:55 AM // 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by KZaske

Oh I understood what the OP wanted. I just chose to ignore it. What the OP wanted would cost as much as the developement of GW:Eye of the North with no finicial reward for ArenaNet, something that has about as much chance of happening as an ice cube surviving for a week in a lava flow. The mechanics of the game itself would need to be entirely rewritten.

Do you think it will be that hard? I'm not a programmer but woulnd't releasing a dedicated server client with some restrictions of course be enough?

Gill Halendt · Apr 18, 2012, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by aspi

Do you think it will be that hard? I'm not a programmer but woulnd't releasing a dedicated server client with some restrictions of course be enough?

Unlikely.

This would only provide some connectivity, but still, no access to the game database -> that would imply a fresh start for anyone, unless Anet makes all data (highly redundant!) available for anyone, which they wouldn't.

Not to mention that there's much more than just "a server" working in background: each of the provided services/functions are served indipendently, they have login servers, chat servers and actual game servers...

CrazyFarmer · Apr 18, 2012, 04:58 PM // 16:58

There are too much of gamecode on server side, and I think there is no budget to make an offline version with sync when getting online.
Much more rentable just let it as it is.

If it's not rentable, there is no other way than a shutdown. Tabula Rasa, Auto Assault, servers dies every day.

MisterB · Apr 18, 2012, 06:18 PM // 18:18

If GW2 has any network code in common, it doesn't seem to be in ANet's best interest to spend any time and money doing this. I would expect that maintaining GW1 server(s) is cheaper than rewriting the game to remove the server requirement. There's also the GW HoM link to consider.

People need to stop panicking about the servers shutting down immediately after GW2.

HawkofStorms · Apr 19, 2012, 12:34 AM // 00:34

This has been suggested before and is repeatedly shot down.

Why?

Because it'd be incredibly easy to cheat. If the entire client was built client side rather then server side, you could mess with drop tables, give yourself infinate gold/ecto/FoW armor via hacks.
And if you could somehow log back on with your stuff afterwards, you'd ruin a lot of stuff. You want your accomplishments to mean something? Good luck. Allow this and your accomplishments will never mean anything again.

Auron of Neon · Apr 19, 2012, 02:18 AM // 02:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

This has been suggested before and is repeatedly shot down.

Why?

Because it'd be incredibly easy to cheat. If the entire client was built client side rather then server side, you could mess with drop tables, give yourself infinate gold/ecto/FoW armor via hacks.
And if you could somehow log back on with your stuff afterwards, you'd ruin a lot of stuff. You want your accomplishments to mean something? Good luck. Allow this and your accomplishments will never mean anything again.

An offline mode would be permanently offline, not offline until you decided to magically port your characters over to ArenaNet's servers.

Blackbirdx61 · Apr 19, 2012, 05:08 AM // 05:08

Online for me is mostly about chatting with my guild; or getting a little guidance now and again Like trying to blow up the wrong doors for the THead keep Bonus.

Personally I would like an offline H/H only option; for when I dont have the easy net access I have at home. Preferably something that could be resynced later to track your accomplishments, of course some idiot(s) could and would hack it; due props for the Hack; but it's no accomplishment in game terms; it does not invalidate the accomplishment of people that actually did the work.

Hackers are just part of the world we live in, and the only way around them entirely is to get out your funny dice and play D&D; Does anyone still play D&D?

Kunder · Apr 19, 2012, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Keeping servers up is pretty damn cheap (relatively speaking). Guild Wars is still selling, and the in game items are certainly selling. I wouldn't worry about servers going down any time soon, they are still making a profit of Guild Wars even today. As long as it makes them money there is no reason to stop running servers.

I would really like to see private servers though. Its a shame GWLP fizzled out.

Vanaro · Apr 21, 2012, 10:21 AM // 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

This has been suggested before and is repeatedly shot down.

Why?

Because it'd be incredibly easy to cheat. If the entire client was built client side rather then server side, you could mess with drop tables, give yourself infinate gold/ecto/FoW armor via hacks.
And if you could somehow log back on with your stuff afterwards, you'd ruin a lot of stuff. You want your accomplishments to mean something? Good luck. Allow this and your accomplishments will never mean anything again.

They'd only be cheating themselves if they did hack, no one else would be around to care, since it would be offline

bhavv · Apr 23, 2012, 06:58 PM // 18:58

If anything GW1 will still remain active for a long time, because a lot of people who start with the second and enjoy it will want to also play the first to get the HoM rewards and enjoy the lore / story.

I still have a lot left to do in GW1 after GW2 launches and will carry on playing the first to get Gwamm.