Curse

Curseman · May 10, 2009, 11:39 AM // 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obrien Xp

Race specific professions

This is the exact, polar opposite of what they should do.

Milana Feline · May 12, 2009, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curseman

This is the exact, polar opposite of what they should do.

Agreed.

Limiting professions according to race is one of the worst things that can be done for character development. In WoW, only tauren and night elves could be druids. Is there some unexplainable racism going on inside the Cenarion Circle that prevents other races from becoming druid apprentices and pledging themselves for the service of nature?

Limiting professions according to race:

1. Makes the dual classing system harder to implement.
2. Unless the profession requires some inborn magical abilites, not being able to pick the profession dues to your race is rather...well racist.
3. Limitations like this would basically mean that the characters of each race are morons who can only learn one of few professions, which is highly unrealistic.
4. System like this would require the creation of complex classes and confusing lore bogus (*cough* Druids and Death Knights in WoW *cough*), which is something that GW2 doesn't need.

Curseman · May 15, 2009, 10:39 AM // 10:39

I personally think that races should just be a cosmetic difference, or associate the player with a racial "faction" a la Kurzicks/Luxons.

If they make it so there are gameplay and balance differences between races, then it is inevitable that there will be a "right" and a "wrong" choice of race for each class.

Want to be a warrior? Hope you like giants. Prefer rangers? Then you have to choose between being a cat-monster or being gimped. No one has ever made something like that balance out so that every choice is equally good, and no one is ever going to. All it will do is lead to a lack of (good) choices in character creation, as well as the reinforcement of player and character stereotypes.

I just want to play as a regular human fighter/wizard/whatever, and statistical racial differences would mean that I have to choose whether to play as the character I want to play, or being actually effective in the game.

This is all, of course, to say nothing of balancing issues, and what happens to players when their character's unchangeable race gets nerfed into inferiority.

No differences in stats, skills, or classes between races means that the game is more balanced, is *easier* to balance, and that players have much more freedom in being able to choose who and what they want to play as.

Milana Feline · May 18, 2009, 11:11 AM // 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curseman

I personally think that races should just be a cosmetic difference, or associate the player with a racial "faction" a la Kurzicks/Luxons.

If they make it so there are gameplay and balance differences between races, then it is inevitable that there will be a "right" and a "wrong" choice of race for each class.

Want to be a warrior? Hope you like giants. Prefer rangers? Then you have to choose between being a cat-monster or being gimped. No one has ever made something like that balance out so that every choice is equally good, and no one is ever going to. All it will do is lead to a lack of (good) choices in character creation, as well as the reinforcement of player and character stereotypes.

Very true. In WoW, classes like hunter, warrior and rogue didn't have huge differences when it came to their race, if talking about the surface. However some of the available races had racials that were far more useful than those of other races. If you did a lot of PvP, these differences hit you in the face pretty badly.

Gnome rogues with the escape skill.
Tauren hunters with stomp.
Blood elf rogues with the silence skill.
Night elf rogues and hunters with shadowmeld...err...well it was good for arena drinking.
Not to talk about the undead racial skill. Wasn't that bad if there wasn't a warlock though.

So the benefits are obvious. Also stats in races have surprisingly much influence. Having played a Night Elf druid, I found myself losing to tauren druids quite often. Throw in a bit more health (and more strength if I remember correctly?) and stomp and it was more than enough to tip the odds towards the Horde. Both players being equal with same gear and almost always: I lost.

As for caster classes, some races were so obviously much better that it isn't even funny. (Mana Tap)

Benefits like this shouldn't excist. Too bad ANet has already promised Bear Form which in EoTN is already highly imba. Just to mention the Vanguard solo quest with a bear form Norn and Norn Fighting tournament's final opponent. Clearly a "me smash ur face" skill

Brawn Over Brains · May 19, 2009, 09:27 PM // 21:27

I;m not going to read through 77 pages to confirm this, but it's been said already I'm willing to bet money.
LEVEL CAP.
I want it higher than 20, but not ridiuclously high like it was on RuneScape or WoW..
Like 30-35
So that I don't have to grind until my eyes bleed to have more than 1 char at level cap, but I don't need to just Brawl my way in 2 days to 20.

Sword Hammer Axe · May 19, 2009, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brawn Over Brains

I;m not going to read through 77 pages to confirm this, but it's been said already I'm willing to bet money.
LEVEL CAP.
I want it higher than 20, but not ridiuclously high like it was on RuneScape or WoW..
Like 30-35
So that I don't have to grind until my eyes bleed to have more than 1 char at level cap, but I don't need to just Brawl my way in 2 days to 20.

Brawl in 3 days for 30! No but seriously I agree. Having a level cap about the same as some of the heavy monsters from GW1 would be sweet. Of course then monsters like the great dragon's should have like level 40 since when we get stronger they kinda have to :P

Obrien Xp · May 19, 2009, 10:27 PM // 22:27

I'm guessing the lvl cap will be 50. I like that #.

Sextacy · May 21, 2009, 03:31 PM // 15:31

I'm uncertain about making the cap lvl 40 though, wouldn't that make GW2 a NWN2 (from dungeons & dragons) copier? (neverwinternights is made to have lvl 40 when you own all expansions)

Curseman · May 23, 2009, 04:15 AM // 04:15

The actual number that levels are capped at is meaningless. It could be level 10 and still be the worst grindfest humanity has ever seen, and likewise, it could cap out at 100 and take two days of casual play to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milana Feline

Benefits like this shouldn't excist. Too bad ANet has already promised Bear Form which in EoTN is already highly imba. Just to mention the Vanguard solo quest with a bear form Norn and Norn Fighting tournament's final opponent. Clearly a "me smash ur face" skill

Here's hoping that they at least make the only differences pve skills or something then. I think that's the most tolerable change they could have.

eidanch1 · May 24, 2009, 11:29 AM // 11:29

The idea may be a little exaggerated but it's a nice idea anyway.
I thought of something like a Guild Stock Market. All guilds have a certain value that is dependent on elements such as Guild hall, cape, number of members, faction, stats etc...
In Guild Wars 2, a Guild leader (owns 100% of the guild upon creation) that needs money (or for any other reason) may sell shares in his guild to players for a certain amount of money (calculated determined by game mechanics). That share may give him power in the guild (he has power in votes, member management etc...). Those shares' value will raise and fall according to the guild's stats, value and properties. Those shares might also be traded in some kind of a "Zaishan Market".
Of course this might look like a lame idea because why would a Leader want to sell his guild to people who might just interfere and slow his progress. Well a smart Leader won't sell more then 51% of his shares. This method add economic depth to the game and also provide a way of gambling on guilds (not only PvP, but also PvE, as the guilds value raises with all kind of achievements and growing property like guild bank), and of course a way to support guilds you want to support. This idea can be widely manipulated and might be great if implemented.

Sword Hammer Axe · May 24, 2009, 12:48 PM // 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by eidanch1

The idea may be a little exaggerated but it's a nice idea anyway.
I thought of something like a Guild Stock Market. All guilds have a certain value that is dependent on elements such as Guild hall, cape, number of members, faction, stats etc...
In Guild Wars 2, a Guild leader (owns 100% of the guild upon creation) that needs money (or for any other reason) may sell shares in his guild to players for a certain amount of money (calculated determined by game mechanics). That share may give him power in the guild (he has power in votes, member management etc...). Those shares' value will raise and fall according to the guild's stats, value and properties. Those shares might also be traded in some kind of a "Zaishan Market".
Of course this might look like a lame idea because why would a Leader want to sell his guild to people who might just interfere and slow his progress. Well a smart Leader won't sell more then 51% of his shares. This method add economic depth to the game and also provide a way of gambling on guilds (not only PvP, but also PvE, as the guilds value raises with all kind of achievements and growing property like guild bank), and of course a way to support guilds you want to support. This idea can be widely manipulated and might be great if implemented.

I like the basic idea. Would give a economic addition to the game which could prove useful as experience for real life economics :P

Nodakim · May 24, 2009, 12:52 PM // 12:52

The level in Guild Wars wont matter that much.
I suspect that the unlimited levels will just mean more like new skill points then stronger skills,more health and energy etc.

Obrien Xp · May 24, 2009, 04:31 PM // 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sword Hammer Axe

I like the basic idea. Would give a economic addition to the game which could prove useful as experience for real life economics :P

But what about all those little kids (who are too young to even play the game) who sit there with loads of cash and have no idea how the markets work. Oh, wait those little kids work at Wall St. and gave us this crap.

New Idea:
Rep title track for each race.
Asuran sidekick to be Golem.

Curseman · May 26, 2009, 10:39 PM // 22:39

I was thinking that the sidekicks would be more or less like a player character.

Like, you design their appearance and pick their class and skills and so forth.

Obrien Xp · May 27, 2009, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curseman

I was thinking that the sidekicks would be more or less like a player character.

Like, you design their appearance and pick their class and skills and so forth.

I haven't played City of Heroes/Villans so I can't discuss that. (Seeing as that's where they got the concept. I would expect them to be like a hero, but I have no idea what their primary prof would be.

Milana Feline · May 29, 2009, 05:37 AM // 05:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obrien Xp

New Idea:
Rep title track for each race.

Something apparently has happened here since a whole lot of posts are gone but oh well, might as well repeat myself:

If you mean something on the lines of EOtN then hell no. But if you mean something on the lines of WoW then sure, why not. It would be nice to be able to favor the races you like best. For example if mounts are introduced, you could do Norn quests as a Charr and after a certain reputation status is achieved you could buy a Norn mount.

It would still be grindy yes, but not boring as hell as having to fill up 2 books over and over and over and over and over again.

PahaLukki · May 29, 2009, 11:31 AM // 11:31

Ok I tried to search for this but couldn't find it, the rest digressed, dunno, though some general whine about simple lack of animations can be found.

In GW right now we have immediate spell effects, heals and hexes, even damaging skills, once cast, it has arrived, for most things. Not only are the spell casting animations difficult to see in the battlefield because the animations themselves are very mundane and non-flashy, but there is very little sound indication either. Just waving hands is a bit indiscernible, often like a necro just leans back now and stutters there for 3 seconds and BOOM! rotten flesh, and once the spell is cast you cannot run away. People also hex and heal through walls and cliffs which is a bit insane as well. We also lack the necessary zoom out to see the whole field of cast radius properly to monitor opposing casters.

So,
1) Give hexes, heals and other spells a time delay to reach depending on how far the actual target is, and if the target runs away enough, out of the radius, the spell should fail. So, the spells would have a sort of max distance to travel before vanishing into thin air. (Of course the spell should still be noticeably faster than run speed).
2) Have a typical cast animation, with some sort of bright color appearing in front of the caster for all the duration of the spell incantation, but also have the incantation voice, so the players know someone is actually casting stuff. Just some gibberish there to alert of coming spells. The incoming spell should also be visible by some sort of light effect, like a small glimmering ball of light or something, this would indicate where the hexes or heals are coming.

Some other issues are:

The lack of ability to cast AoE spells simply on a chosen spot in ground.

Spellcasting is not interrupted by auto-attacks which means spellcasters without any protections can just be toe-to-toe with a swordsman and keep spamming spells, that is a bit... strange. Essentially front and backrow barely exist in GW.

There is also a point to be made about circle strafing: being hit doesn't slow you down currently, but perhaps a small on-hit animation that stops or slows down the character for 0.25 seconds would be enough to stop such nuisance. It should be a specific warrior stance that prevents on-hit slow down. Of course magical enchantments blocking should not slow down at all.

And I think strength's armor penetration should also apply to auto-attack, and also reduce % of the total armor with bonuses instead of reducing % of base armor and then to that are the bonuses added, like it currently is I understand. As a whole the threat of auto-attack and melee range combat needs to be larger, because warriors are there to do damage, but now with all the ease of conditioning and hexing warriors have become a joke, or else their whole bar is anti-something and because auto-attack is no threat, they deal no damage.

Also, hexes and conditions could be nerfed to do less, like half the degeneration they do now (I understand that at max degen you lose 20 health a sec, and 500 in 25 secs, that is a bit extreme, and getting max degen is easy), but with an equal nerf to heals then as well. Heals are too powerful overall, there are a lot of stalemates in PvP and tough monk bosses in PvE resist death frustratingly well. More combat, less insta-armor-ignoring-damage and insta-red-bars-up, stronger protection spells instead.

And definitely GW2 should have 10 skill bar (the numbers 9 and 0?), it would probably add more versatility to characters, with less emphasis on build wars instead of actual gameplay.

And dunno about things that happen by chance, like guardian is 50% chance to block, or swords do anything from 15-22. Small issue, but you would quickly think that in a multiplayer you'd like to have fixed results for "fair" gameplay. Swords should do 19 damage, guardian blocks always!

Probably the most boring part of PvE is the constant luring, which needs to be reduced. Luring is also silly, the monsters cannot possibly pretend to be so stupid that you shoot an arrow and two of them come look see, and then you slaughter the few. Monster aggro should always spread wildly, because that happens when it goes bad, so it might as well be bad always, you can't save in the game and nothing is more frustrating than accidental bad aggro in the middle of nowhere -> wipe -> replay all the same areas. GG.

Luring is a necessity now with tough mobs and high skill recharges, low energy regeneration: you cannot beat them all head-on. There is a balance at this point in GW: Things operate at a level which is defined by the recharge and energy cost and regeneration. The more entities, the more energy regeneration and higher skill usage. Few ways exist around this and those are basically maximizing degeneration usage (all enemies poisoned) or hitting a sweet spot with AoE skills that cause a lot of damage to the comparable skill recharge and the energy it took to cast. But enemies avoid AoE, you don't have cast-on-ground to anticipate the movement of enemies and block areas, and most stuff are non-fleshy and will not bleed or poison, so in PvE forget about apply poison. So, you are left with stuff like suffering, SS, minions to create the "pressure". No wonder necros are the preferred PvE team, duh. More options to outplay the characters immediately realizable potential, in terms of skill recharging and energy regenerating, should exist. Through more reflex based gameplay perhaps? Headshot!

And as a last bit in GW2, they really should strive to keep the skills between PvE and PvP unified and with no PvE specials either. I came from PvE to PvP with Warrior's Endurance and Burst of Aggression and wondered what the hell, what is canceling WE? But also, now, it's like elementalists kill in PvP, but not in PvE HM anymore, because the monsters are way different with their armor and hp. Why not make the difficulty come out of better monster builds, or by increasing the number of monsters, or the variety of the monster mobs?

Obrien Xp · May 29, 2009, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milana Feline

Something apparently has happened here since a whole lot of posts are gone but oh well, might as well repeat myself:

If you mean something on the lines of EOtN then hell no. But if you mean something on the lines of WoW then sure, why not. It would be nice to be able to favor the races you like best. For example if mounts are introduced, you could do Norn quests as a Charr and after a certain reputation status is achieved you could buy a Norn mount.

It would still be grindy yes, but not boring as hell as having to fill up 2 books over and over and over and over and over again.

Yeah, I was thinking more on the wow lines, though I like how anet does their things better. All it would do is show off how much they like you and lower prices on their goods by like 10% tops. It would be gained passively, killing enemies in their lands and completing quests. It would have no effect on skills.

sportacus · May 29, 2009, 11:44 PM // 23:44

To ANet - If you're bringing back shadow form, give everything with valuable drops a touch attack.

Milana Feline · May 31, 2009, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by PahaLukki

And definitely GW2 should have 10 skill bar (the numbers 9 and 0?), it would probably add more versatility to characters, with less emphasis on build wars instead of actual gameplay.

Now that someone actually mentions this thing rationally without:

"There has to be more than 8 skills....because I say so!"

or

"There must never be more than 8 skills. GW has 8 skills. The builds have 8 skills. We have 8 skills now. There must be 8 skills in the future...because I am a hard core GW fan and I say so!!!!"

Not to mention the analytic, endless discussions about skill combos and build balances, synergies etc. and how that delicate harmony will be broken if 2 more skill slots are added *facepalm*

The numbers from 1 to 0 on our keyboard are there for us to use so yes, 10 skills would make far more sense. And 8 is always more than 10 but not as much as OMG 50 TEH SKILLZ.

In short: I agree 200%