I understand the Diablo II server setups, but somethings missing.

I really dont think its going to work well with a roleplaying type of game. Diablo II game mechanics will work good with Diablo III, not this game.

It is an ingenious and cost effective way of keeping the cost of servers down, while maintaining the illusion of a MMORG in towns, outposts and missions. Unfortunately I dont think we will last very long, even with expansions. We will never be able to own land. We will never run into eachother in the wilds randomly (that, I miss, though I dont miss SWG).

8 player groups are pretty small.

Theres just something about a persistant word that is just fun. I do love Diablo II though, and still occasionally play it after all these years.

If people wanted a real MMO ala SWG, those are still available. I'm sure there will be people who prefer the GW approach, especially the idea of no monthly fee...

I would like larger groups, but realistically why aren't all games set up like this? In counter strike, instead of looking at a text list of games why don't you run around and go into an arena? Every online game should be set up in this fashion, where you enter the game as soon as you run the program...

I personally think the only reason anyone is playin GW is due to the fact its free-to-play after buying the game.

And a bit of nostalgia over Diablo2/LOD. It's a pretty good game imo, though coming from someone who hasn't played the real MMORPGs.

I'm still playing and paying for World of Warcraft. Also played various other MMORPGs, and had the alpha events of GW. It was already clear to me the title MMORPG is placed wrong here. Even in towns you have districts that split up players, and then the 8 people max groups isn't that big either. And all areas (even exploration) are instanced, wich mean each group has its own private area.

But I can't see them keeping the servers up when they change it to a real mmorpg, now they can use the battlenet technology like Diablo II. I fear that technology can't carry more heavy loads that comes with real MMORPGs.

its only 8 right now. as time goes on the missons will have to get harder and harder(having an expansion start with a misson easier then the last in the game is not gonna happen) so eventually groups of 10 will show up and then 12 and so on. for now the group size is pretty good. i rarly find that you need more people then you are allowed in a certain area. or on the converse that you have too many to make it really easy. the balance there is pretty good i think

I play it because it rocks.

GW is no MMORPG so please stop comparing it to WoW.
Thx.

I never did, and the game is good, but your lieing if you say that the fact it costs you zero to play does not attact you to it!

GW is a MMORPG only in a sense, but it follows a different critera to that of other MMORPG type games.

Comparing it is WoW is fine as there are things in both games which are the same.

But at its core GW is a different kind of animal.

I prefer a storyline over a persistent world.

It would be nice to have both, but I don't think it is possible. With a persistent world, you cannot really make any permanent changes, as there will always come people after you.

Money is always a thing to consider. But for me and GW it is a minor one. I would have bought it anyway (just for supporting the idea of not paying monthly fees) but I play it because I like it.

Of course you can compare WoW and GW in some way - but for example "owning land" doesn't fit in the playstyle of GW. The games are very different. In WoW you simulate your life online - GW neither can't nor want to compete with this...