I'm very skeptical. To me it sounds like War's public quests on a larger scale and without the reset timer, nothing more.
WAR's biggest problem was that there was no compelling reason to do most of the public quests. Most public quests didn't give out good gear or experience once you got past Tier 1. Mythic also did a horrible job of creating great PVE. ArenaNet's background is actually pretty strong in this area. Yes, PVP is a big part of the game. But any Guild Wars player can tell you about challenging missions like the Ascension missions in the Crystal Desert, or the temple battle with the dragon in Factions, or the final showdown against Abaddon in Nightfall. The Guild Wars missions are some of the best PVE I've ever played, on par with WOW's dungeons and LOTRO's book quests.
I'll admit that I'm in wait-and-see mode. But if the ANet team can change the current "kill ten rats" mode that now dominates MMOGs, I'll be thrilled.
I could be skeptical. But I'd rather be very, very hopeful. This functionality is what I was hoping for from Heroes of Telara.
We've been flirting with the technology to accomplish this for years, but no one has pushed out a product that kept the complex feature set to support this. It's usually the small, idealistic indie developers who want to make this kind of game, not an established company. You quickly learn how difficult and complex this stuff is, and it's easier to back away and make a WoW clone.
I sure hope the GW2 team pulls off most of this, and has a solid release, because that will show the rest of the industry that dynamic content is doable. I never want to follow a stupid exclamation point again.
I agree, I am keeping my fingures crossed that GW2 can accomplish this. I would love to see the golden exclamation point suffer a very horrible death and never be seen again .
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like there are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
See the dynamic event system as "Reality".There will be THOUSANDS of events so players will have alot to explore and will always find something new + the events changes the world(Tyria).
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like their are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
Here's the exact quote
In the update, the example of a dredge army marching across the land can go two ways – players either halt the army, or the army passes into an allied village and causes havoc. But depending on when players intervene, the overall course of the event could change. "Events are not just pass/fail. You don't just black and white succeed or black and white beat them. Based on how the players interact with the event means that whatever happens next is different."
Stopping the army early may mean that you and your allies push forward and attempt to take the dredge encampment, while taking too long may mean that the dredge have spread into neighboring villages. Stopping them somewhere in the middle could have entirely different consequences, according to Johanson. "Almost all the events in the game are part of chains that branch off into different directions depending on the actions the players take"
Oh and btw what did you expect infinite outcomes? really?
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like there are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
In real life we take consequences of our choices..and we take like ALOT of choices everyday. I see no different in GW2. Isnt that what people wanted with this system? that is what i want atleast.
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like their are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
Here's the exact quote
In the update, the example of a dredge army marching across the land can go two ways – players either halt the army, or the army passes into an allied village and causes havoc. But depending on when players intervene, the overall course of the event could change. "Events are not just pass/fail. You don't just black and white succeed or black and white beat them. Based on how the players interact with the event means that whatever happens next is different."
Stopping the army early may mean that you and your allies push forward and attempt to take the dredge encampment, while taking too long may mean that the dredge have spread into neighboring villages. Stopping them somewhere in the middle could have entirely different consequences, according to Johanson. "Almost all the events in the game are part of chains that branch off into different directions depending on the actions the players take"
Oh and btw what did you expect infinite outcomes? really?
What they described is the same as what I was trying to convey. you have a progressive system based on cause and effect where there is a set goal from an enemy party. In my case I gave it a number which was 5, but it could be 20. You could have a 20 step program across an enormous area.
Branching off into different chains just means the AI moves on to the next PQ based on the action or inaction of a player. Understand this is how I see it in my head, working, as I have only what they are saying to go on. This is what it sounds like, and its not that it sounds bad to me, or anything like that.
Chalk it up to a BioWare RPG just in PQ form. You talk to an NPC, make some choices, and depending on your actions it could change the course of what you do next, or it could affect the quest, the town, or the next enemy you fight. These things chain on down the line to reach a goal.
I didn't believe we would see infinite outcomes, but I put out the word infinite as to exaggerate that at some point, the content will loop.
@heerobya. they wont remove personal quests. the last paragraph tells us that Ree will have a follow-up blog where she will talk abt "personal story system" that will address the "lack of character development and overall sense of personal story" problem prevalent in most MMOs.
This personal story system will occur mostly in instances, not on the persistant world where the public quests occur
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like their are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
Here's the exact quote
In the update, the example of a dredge army marching across the land can go two ways – players either halt the army, or the army passes into an allied village and causes havoc. But depending on when players intervene, the overall course of the event could change. "Events are not just pass/fail. You don't just black and white succeed or black and white beat them. Based on how the players interact with the event means that whatever happens next is different."
Stopping the army early may mean that you and your allies push forward and attempt to take the dredge encampment, while taking too long may mean that the dredge have spread into neighboring villages. Stopping them somewhere in the middle could have entirely different consequences, according to Johanson. "Almost all the events in the game are part of chains that branch off into different directions depending on the actions the players take"
Oh and btw what did you expect infinite outcomes? really?
It's an evolution of the PQ system from WAR. Good, game companies should continue to build on what's been done before.
It's more dynamic PvE, which should be a nice change. I'm assuming, however, that it will still have its limits. Given the example used, will the army continue to spread and conquer towns, or will it stop?
Personally, I don't expect infinite outcomes from a themepark game. A quality sandbox, with good player driven content, gets a lot closer to infinite. A lot closer.
@heerobya. they wont remove personal quests. the last paragraph tells us that Ree will have a follow-up blog where she will talk abt "personal story system" that will address the "lack of character development and overall sense of personal story" problem prevalent in most MMOs.
This personal story system will occur mostly in instances, not on the persistant world where the public quests occur
Interesting, that sounds strikingly similar to how TOR is doing their questing system.
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like their are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
Here's the exact quote
In the update, the example of a dredge army marching across the land can go two ways – players either halt the army, or the army passes into an allied village and causes havoc. But depending on when players intervene, the overall course of the event could change. "Events are not just pass/fail. You don't just black and white succeed or black and white beat them. Based on how the players interact with the event means that whatever happens next is different."
Stopping the army early may mean that you and your allies push forward and attempt to take the dredge encampment, while taking too long may mean that the dredge have spread into neighboring villages. Stopping them somewhere in the middle could have entirely different consequences, according to Johanson. "Almost all the events in the game are part of chains that branch off into different directions depending on the actions the players take"
Oh and btw what did you expect infinite outcomes? really?
What they described is the same as what I was trying to convey. you have a progressive system based on cause and effect where there is a set goal from an enemy party. In my case I gave it a number which was 5, but it could be 20. You could have a 20 step program across an enormous area.
Branching off into different chains just means the AI moves on to the next PQ based on the action or inaction of a player. Understand this is how I see it in my head, working, as I have only what they are saying to go on. This is what it sounds like, and its not that it sounds bad to me, or anything like that.
Chalk it up to a BioWare RPG just in PQ form. You talk to an NPC, make some choices, and depending on your actions it could change the course of what you do next, or it could affect the quest, the town, or the next enemy you fight. These things chain on down the line to reach a goal.
I didn't believe we would see infinite outcomes, but I put out the word infinite as to exaggerate that at some point, the content will loop.
Umm all that was pretty much assumed anyway. I was just saying it wasn't like PQ where you pretty much either win or lose with little to no variation. This is far more complex than that since they're choices with different outcomes and the events themselves are cyclic. Plus multiple different events are layered on top of each other so they occur simultaneously and there's a domino's affect altering an entire region. It's like comparing super mario 3 to super paper mario thery're similar but not really....
This is actually genius! If they pull this off (and that's a big if as this is a HUGE undertaking) I imagine it may cause a dramatic shift in the industry. For one thing it'll kinda scrap the concept of endgame since players won't be grinding/questing, they'll just be participating in scaling events and getting xp in the process. Essentially the whole game will be an endgame-like experience by the sounds of it.
For those questioning how they will structure it to allow for repetitions and stuff (as obviously the events will have to repeat eventually) I imagine they'll have multiple AI controlled factions in a given area that can interact with each other. If one faction starts to become dominant they can just use another (or even allied NPCs from Lion's Arch, etc.) to push them back if players won't stand up to them. Essentially the system will be cyclical, I just hope they make the cycles long enough that they don't become too obvious (and if the events can diverge as much as they're suggesting then each cycle will be significantly different as well). Just guesses of course, but that's the only way I can see them designing it since the mobs will carry on doing what they're doing whether players are there or not... if no one shows up to stop those ogres then that guy is gonna lose his house, they're not gonna wait around.
Also why do people keep talking about getting 'quests'? This system doesn't use quests, they're active events, you don't speak to an NPC, you just do it and get a reward, that's the whole point.
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like their are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
Here's the exact quote
In the update, the example of a dredge army marching across the land can go two ways – players either halt the army, or the army passes into an allied village and causes havoc. But depending on when players intervene, the overall course of the event could change. "Events are not just pass/fail. You don't just black and white succeed or black and white beat them. Based on how the players interact with the event means that whatever happens next is different."
Stopping the army early may mean that you and your allies push forward and attempt to take the dredge encampment, while taking too long may mean that the dredge have spread into neighboring villages. Stopping them somewhere in the middle could have entirely different consequences, according to Johanson. "Almost all the events in the game are part of chains that branch off into different directions depending on the actions the players take"
Oh and btw what did you expect infinite outcomes? really?
What they described is the same as what I was trying to convey. you have a progressive system based on cause and effect where there is a set goal from an enemy party. In my case I gave it a number which was 5, but it could be 20. You could have a 20 step program across an enormous area.
Branching off into different chains just means the AI moves on to the next PQ based on the action or inaction of a player. Understand this is how I see it in my head, working, as I have only what they are saying to go on. This is what it sounds like, and its not that it sounds bad to me, or anything like that.
Chalk it up to a BioWare RPG just in PQ form. You talk to an NPC, make some choices, and depending on your actions it could change the course of what you do next, or it could affect the quest, the town, or the next enemy you fight. These things chain on down the line to reach a goal.
I didn't believe we would see infinite outcomes, but I put out the word infinite as to exaggerate that at some point, the content will loop.
Umm all that was pretty much assumed anyway. I was just saying it wasn't like PQ where you pretty much either win or lose with little to no variation. This is far more complex than that since their are choices with differnt outcomes and the events themselves are cyclic. Plus multiple different events are layered on top of each other so they occur simultaneously. It's like comparing super mario 3 to super paper mario thery're similar but not really....
I'm not trying to downplay the game, or talk bad about it in any way, and I think it will be fun to play, but ultimately, to me, it sounds like they are just chaining public quests together with a consequence system. Thats just my opinion. I think its too presumptuous at this point to say exactly what we can expect, and I could be wrong... but then again, I could be right
If they completely remove personal questing and make everything scalable from solo to group (public) quests I just worry it'll be like WAR but all you do is hop from PQ to PQ, and depending on if you "win" or "lose" a PQ it'll either send you to the next one or to a different one.
And yeah with the exploration thing how often will those repeat?
I'll just have to see it in practice and play around with it... but I love the very idea of Public Quests and the more the better, completely eliminating personal (solo) quests and going 100% PQ? It's ballsy but if they do chain them and loop them in a way that feels organic and interesting I won't mind a little repetition, especially with the scaling mechanics and varying player participating altering the content each loop...
What they're describing doesn't sound like that. They've already said they're won't be "win or lose" in the example of the dredge marching they said they a different chain of events will trigger depending if you attack them early, in the middle, late, or not at all etc. It's reacting to what your doing not just if you win or lose. What they're describing isn't just multiple PQ linked to together. What you do and when you do things also affect things.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like there are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
In real life we take consequences of our choices..and we take like ALOT of choices everyday. I see no different in GW2. Isnt that what people wanted with this system? that is what i want atleast.
well yeah they are pqs but if you re-read the article (i assume you have) then you notice that if the army wins and takes the town they start to build up the town...creating walls and towers and such..while they are doing this they are also sending supplies back and forth (which creates different mob spawn locations ) (more content) however they also send out patrols and snipers into the hills.....well then these mobs attack other towns killing merchants and such that players use (changing the gameplay from a quest simply reseting after you failed it)
so now you have the map changing..this change gives player an oppertunity to attack the town (this is different for WARs where if you failed the first step or second step it was all over) this change helps make each play through different if you are rolling different toons.
yeah will there be only so many options...yes i think so you can only do so many things...will there be much more content....of course and (as said in the article) there will be hundreds of there and many hidden ones that can change the world.....and changing world (even if there are only so many options) is still better then defeating the lich king just to help your friend with slaying him again tomorrow
I'm going to be the odd one out and say I love the system, but not the scaling, I know it has many advantages, even more so later on when it will be harder to find people in the starting level zones, but it could also be a lot of fun trying to find enough people to turn back a horde of invaders and not have it scale down.
The thing that attracts me most is a wide open persistent world where anything can happen and from that point of view I don't like the fact that the encounter is tailored to exactly how many people there are in the area. Too me it would be more fun to walk over a hill and see 100 NPC's with bad intentions marching over to me, and run like a maniac to go get help to stop them than walking over said hill and instead of a army see 2 npc's because im the only player in the imidate area. Then some of my friends pitch up and wouldn't you believe it at that exact time the NPC's get reinforced too. It's just a bit too much hand holding for me. Id rather you put them their and let me figgure out a way to kill em :P
Again I see the advantages of the scaling, it just doesn't appeal to me. I'll def give it a go anyway, who knows I may learn to love it
I'm guessing that certain stops in those PQ event trees will have sort of a minimum of required players, and maybe also a maximum limit to their scaling (although 40 players fighting off a horde of dredges or skeleton warriors in a beleaguered city will be nothing short of awesome) .
I mean, I don't expect 1 player to conquer the village back from the dredges. I do expect that 1 player can attack the caravans between the original dredge camp and the newnly conquered village, or to kill off the snipers that are issued forth from the conquered village and that are moving towards the other villages, until the conquered village is taken back again.
Maybe (but that's just guesswork) the scaling is also not a 1:1 situation, but is it the case that with every new player arriving the event will be slightly easier to do, so that 20 players have a better time defending a village than 2. The other end (or one of the other ends) I expect on the other hand to be harder; conquering that original dredge camp may already be hard to do, but keeping the invading dredges who want to take their camp back will be harder, and maybe even getting harder and harder the longer the players have the dredge base occupied.
this quote from the GW2 article seems to suggest that:
'Players will be able battle their way inside the dredge base, face off against their commander, rescue captured friendly troops being held in the dredge prisons, and even hold the captured base while fighting waves of dredge, who arrive from deep underground to try and take back their home.'
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Originally posted by maskedweasel Originally posted by illyana @heerobya. they wont remove personal quests. the last paragraph tells us that Ree will have a follow-up blog where she will talk abt "personal story system" that will address the "lack of character development and overall sense of personal story" problem prevalent in most MMOs. This personal story system will occur mostly in instances, not on the persistant world where the public quests occur
Interesting, that sounds strikingly similar to how TOR is doing their questing system. yeah maybe, but ANET's been doing that since GW1
@heerobya. they wont remove personal quests. the last paragraph tells us that Ree will have a follow-up blog where she will talk abt "personal story system" that will address the "lack of character development and overall sense of personal story" problem prevalent in most MMOs.
This personal story system will occur mostly in instances, not on the persistant world where the public quests occur
Interesting, that sounds strikingly similar to how TOR is doing their questing system.
yeah maybe, but ANET's been doing that since GW1
They've been setting up questing hubs since GW1. Phantasy Star has been doing that for years. I was thinking this would be more then a questing hub system... if we're lucky it will be close to what TOR has planned.
Dont get me wrong, im a big fan of GW...But i've been stung beffor, i would LOVE to see everything they have said in this game and making it the next "big thing" but i've been told all this "it'll be the new thing to play" stuff beffor so many times im starting to find each one harder and harder to beleave.
I will 100% be buying GW2 but im not holding my breath for everything they say they will give, i'll still love it no matter what, but im sure you all see what im saying when i say agan.
Seriously though one thing concerns me. The name. All of this sounds great and if it's implemented will it really will be the next leap in MMOs but I'm worried too many people will write this off because of misconceptions they might have such as thinking it's going to be instances based or thinking that since they haven't played the first one they will be lost in the second one.
I for one just wish they would call it Tyria or whatever the world's name is or something else. But I personally loved the first one and will be back for this one in a heart beat.
big talk from the makers of fail'd wars. we've heard this all before, with every mmo that comes out. Since they are never held accountable for the big promises made pre-release, there's no reason to trust a word that devs and marketers say about an mmo.
Pretty sure GW1 sold a few million copies. Not to say that has anything to do with steady players, but that is no where near a failure in most peoples eyes. Just because you did not like it means it is a failure? That is sound logic.
ya around 7 million or more.they stayed second only to wow for a very long time frame!my bet is it will be pretty mutch the way it was instanced and all but everybody will have access to everything,so you start say in the first city get out if you are 500 to get out there will be 500 on that map you wont be solo or just 5 like before.thats probably the way it will be!
I would love to see all of this in a game, adding it to my watch list. However, I agree it all looks great when they talk about it. I want to see how it is actually implimented
"Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better." parrotpholk
Still other events could be entirely random, such as events tied to the game's weather system.
"A giant lightning storm could form over the map, and lightning bolts could start shooting down, creating lightning elementals all over the place," Johanson says. "Lightning elementals that cause events that chain out from that, as elementals spread out across the map and start to cause havoc."
Comments
WAR's biggest problem was that there was no compelling reason to do most of the public quests. Most public quests didn't give out good gear or experience once you got past Tier 1. Mythic also did a horrible job of creating great PVE. ArenaNet's background is actually pretty strong in this area. Yes, PVP is a big part of the game. But any Guild Wars player can tell you about challenging missions like the Ascension missions in the Crystal Desert, or the temple battle with the dragon in Factions, or the final showdown against Abaddon in Nightfall. The Guild Wars missions are some of the best PVE I've ever played, on par with WOW's dungeons and LOTRO's book quests.
I'll admit that I'm in wait-and-see mode. But if the ANet team can change the current "kill ten rats" mode that now dominates MMOGs, I'll be thrilled.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
I agree, I am keeping my fingures crossed that GW2 can accomplish this. I would love to see the golden exclamation point suffer a very horrible death and never be seen again
.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like PQs to me. If you have 5 stages 1 being you push them back and 5 being they control the area, then I don't see how coming in at 2, 3 or 4 and working to repel them would change the outcome of either 1 or 5.
Maybe 2 means they revert to another town, or maybe 3 means they split and flank to 2 towns, and maybe 4 means you've pushed them back and they summon a demon... but in the end it doesn't sound like there are infinite deviations to these chains.
To me it sounds like they are publicly creating content with alternate consequences resulting in a finite amount of outcomes.... ..... but thats just me.
See the dynamic event system as "Reality".There will be THOUSANDS of events so players will have alot to explore and will always find something new + the events changes the world(Tyria).
Here's the exact quote
In the update, the example of a dredge army marching across the land can go two ways – players either halt the army, or the army passes into an allied village and causes havoc. But depending on when players intervene, the overall course of the event could change. "Events are not just pass/fail. You don't just black and white succeed or black and white beat them. Based on how the players interact with the event means that whatever happens next is different."
Stopping the army early may mean that you and your allies push forward and attempt to take the dredge encampment, while taking too long may mean that the dredge have spread into neighboring villages. Stopping them somewhere in the middle could have entirely different consequences, according to Johanson. "Almost all the events in the game are part of chains that branch off into different directions depending on the actions the players take"
Oh and btw what did you expect infinite outcomes? really?
In real life we take consequences of our choices..and we take like ALOT of choices everyday. I see no different in GW2. Isnt that what people wanted with this system? that is what i want atleast.
What they described is the same as what I was trying to convey. you have a progressive system based on cause and effect where there is a set goal from an enemy party. In my case I gave it a number which was 5, but it could be 20. You could have a 20 step program across an enormous area.
Branching off into different chains just means the AI moves on to the next PQ based on the action or inaction of a player. Understand this is how I see it in my head, working, as I have only what they are saying to go on. This is what it sounds like, and its not that it sounds bad to me, or anything like that.
Chalk it up to a BioWare RPG just in PQ form. You talk to an NPC, make some choices, and depending on your actions it could change the course of what you do next, or it could affect the quest, the town, or the next enemy you fight. These things chain on down the line to reach a goal.
I didn't believe we would see infinite outcomes, but I put out the word infinite as to exaggerate that at some point, the content will loop.
@heerobya. they wont remove personal quests. the last paragraph tells us that Ree will have a follow-up blog where she will talk abt "personal story system" that will address the "lack of character development and overall sense of personal story" problem prevalent in most MMOs.
This personal story system will occur mostly in instances, not on the persistant world where the public quests occur
Have fun storming the castle! - Miracle Max
It's an evolution of the PQ system from WAR. Good, game companies should continue to build on what's been done before.
It's more dynamic PvE, which should be a nice change. I'm assuming, however, that it will still have its limits. Given the example used, will the army continue to spread and conquer towns, or will it stop?
Personally, I don't expect infinite outcomes from a themepark game. A quality sandbox, with good player driven content, gets a lot closer to infinite. A lot closer.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
Interesting, that sounds strikingly similar to how TOR is doing their questing system.
Umm all that was pretty much assumed anyway. I was just saying it wasn't like PQ where you pretty much either win or lose with little to no variation. This is far more complex than that since they're choices with different outcomes and the events themselves are cyclic. Plus multiple different events are layered on top of each other so they occur simultaneously and there's a domino's affect altering an entire region. It's like comparing super mario 3 to super paper mario thery're similar but not really....
This is actually genius! If they pull this off (and that's a big if as this is a HUGE undertaking) I imagine it may cause a dramatic shift in the industry. For one thing it'll kinda scrap the concept of endgame since players won't be grinding/questing, they'll just be participating in scaling events and getting xp in the process. Essentially the whole game will be an endgame-like experience by the sounds of it.
For those questioning how they will structure it to allow for repetitions and stuff (as obviously the events will have to repeat eventually) I imagine they'll have multiple AI controlled factions in a given area that can interact with each other. If one faction starts to become dominant they can just use another (or even allied NPCs from Lion's Arch, etc.) to push them back if players won't stand up to them. Essentially the system will be cyclical, I just hope they make the cycles long enough that they don't become too obvious (and if the events can diverge as much as they're suggesting then each cycle will be significantly different as well). Just guesses of course, but that's the only way I can see them designing it since the mobs will carry on doing what they're doing whether players are there or not... if no one shows up to stop those ogres then that guy is gonna lose his house, they're not gonna wait around.
Also why do people keep talking about getting 'quests'? This system doesn't use quests, they're active events, you don't speak to an NPC, you just do it and get a reward, that's the whole point.
I'm not trying to downplay the game, or talk bad about it in any way, and I think it will be fun to play, but ultimately, to me, it sounds like they are just chaining public quests together with a consequence system. Thats just my opinion. I think its too presumptuous at this point to say exactly what we can expect, and I could be wrong... but then again, I could be right
well yeah they are pqs but if you re-read the article (i assume you have) then you notice that if the army wins and takes the town they start to build up the town...creating walls and towers and such..while they are doing this they are also sending supplies back and forth (which creates different mob spawn locations ) (more content) however they also send out patrols and snipers into the hills.....well then these mobs attack other towns killing merchants and such that players use (changing the gameplay from a quest simply reseting after you failed it)
so now you have the map changing..this change gives player an oppertunity to attack the town (this is different for WARs where if you failed the first step or second step it was all over) this change helps make each play through different if you are rolling different toons.
yeah will there be only so many options...yes i think so you can only do so many things...will there be much more content....of course and (as said in the article) there will be hundreds of there and many hidden ones that can change the world.....and changing world (even if there are only so many options) is still better then defeating the lich king just to help your friend with slaying him again tomorrow
I'm going to be the odd one out and say I love the system, but not the scaling, I know it has many advantages, even more so later on when it will be harder to find people in the starting level zones, but it could also be a lot of fun trying to find enough people to turn back a horde of invaders and not have it scale down.
The thing that attracts me most is a wide open persistent world where anything can happen and from that point of view I don't like the fact that the encounter is tailored to exactly how many people there are in the area. Too me it would be more fun to walk over a hill and see 100 NPC's with bad intentions marching over to me, and run like a maniac to go get help to stop them than walking over said hill and instead of a army see 2 npc's because im the only player in the imidate area. Then some of my friends pitch up and wouldn't you believe it at that exact time the NPC's get reinforced too. It's just a bit too much hand holding for me. Id rather you put them their and let me figgure out a way to kill em :P
Again I see the advantages of the scaling, it just doesn't appeal to me. I'll def give it a go anyway, who knows I may learn to love it
I'm guessing that certain stops in those PQ event trees will have sort of a minimum of required players, and maybe also a maximum limit to their scaling (although 40 players fighting off a horde of dredges or skeleton warriors in a beleaguered city will be nothing short of awesome) .
I mean, I don't expect 1 player to conquer the village back from the dredges. I do expect that 1 player can attack the caravans between the original dredge camp and the newnly conquered village, or to kill off the snipers that are issued forth from the conquered village and that are moving towards the other villages, until the conquered village is taken back again.
Maybe (but that's just guesswork) the scaling is also not a 1:1 situation, but is it the case that with every new player arriving the event will be slightly easier to do, so that 20 players have a better time defending a village than 2. The other end (or one of the other ends) I expect on the other hand to be harder; conquering that original dredge camp may already be hard to do, but keeping the invading dredges who want to take their camp back will be harder, and maybe even getting harder and harder the longer the players have the dredge base occupied.
this quote from the GW2 article seems to suggest that:
'Players will be able battle their way inside the dredge base, face off against their commander, rescue captured friendly troops being held in the dredge prisons, and even hold the captured base while fighting waves of dredge, who arrive from deep underground to try and take back their home.'
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
yeah maybe, but ANET's been doing that since GW1
Have fun storming the castle! - Miracle Max
They've been setting up questing hubs since GW1. Phantasy Star has been doing that for years. I was thinking this would be more then a questing hub system... if we're lucky it will be close to what TOR has planned.
Dont get me wrong, im a big fan of GW...But i've been stung beffor, i would LOVE to see everything they have said in this game and making it the next "big thing" but i've been told all this "it'll be the new thing to play" stuff beffor so many times im starting to find each one harder and harder to beleave.
I will 100% be buying GW2 but im not holding my breath for everything they say they will give, i'll still love it no matter what, but im sure you all see what im saying when i say agan.
We have been told this beffor
A-Maz-Ing!
Seriously though one thing concerns me. The name. All of this sounds great and if it's implemented will it really will be the next leap in MMOs but I'm worried too many people will write this off because of misconceptions they might have such as thinking it's going to be instances based or thinking that since they haven't played the first one they will be lost in the second one.
I for one just wish they would call it Tyria or whatever the world's name is or something else. But I personally loved the first one and will be back for this one in a heart beat.
This sounds awesome and if they do it I will be happy.
But I still remember Warhammer promising how fresh and new its quests would be, and I got another turd instead.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
ya around 7 million or more.they stayed second only to wow for a very long time frame!my bet is it will be pretty mutch the way it was instanced and all but everybody will have access to everything,so you start say in the first city get out if you are 500 to get out there will be 500 on that map you wont be solo or just 5 like before.thats probably the way it will be!
I would love to see all of this in a game, adding it to my watch list. However, I agree it all looks great when they talk about it. I want to see how it is actually implimented
"Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better." parrotpholk
i got this from IGN interview
Still other events could be entirely random, such as events tied to the game's weather system.
"A giant lightning storm could form over the map, and lightning bolts could start shooting down, creating lightning elementals all over the place," Johanson says. "Lightning elementals that cause events that chain out from that, as elementals spread out across the map and start to cause havoc."
http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1089082p1.html
Have fun storming the castle! - Miracle Max