OP, half of your original post is speculation. The majority of the rest is misinformation.
Take the level cap, for example. They've stated time and again that there will be a "power cap" of sorts where you will continue to gain levels, but you will not gain additional attributes or the like.
Much like the nonsense about the new skill system. You accuse them of being influenced by WoW, but proceed to describe a system completely different to WoW's. What's up with that?
Originally posted by pojung Hey OP, you *do* realize that WoW was primarily developped by the people who now form Arena.Net? The lead programmer, the lead designer, and the VP of R&D for for the Warcraft RTS, Starcraft, and WoW (well hot damn, that's about the entirety of Blizzard's lineup- and all the key, meaningful positions)? Blizzard owns the titles, but the talent that created the soul of those games... is at A.Net. They haven't been influenced by WoW or by GW. The titles have been influenced by them. Information, it's a crazy world.
I found this post hilarious for how wrong it is even though he goes on about Information.
1 - WoW was primarily developed by hundreds of programmers and artists not 3 guys. To attribute WoW to just 3 guys is insulting and disrespectful to the hard working programmers and artists.
2 - Only Jeff Strain actually worked on WoW. Patrick Wyatt and Mike O'Brien didnt work on WoW. They did game engines and Battle.net. That information is accessible in the link you provided.
3 - development of WoW began in 1999, the 3 founders of ArenaNet left Blizzard inApril 2000. Development of WoW took 5 years.
4 - Of the 3 founders of ArenaNet only Mike O'Brien is still with ArenaNet. Patrick Wyatt left to co-found EnMasse Entertainment(TERA) and Jeff Strain left to found Undead Labs(Zombie MMO).
hrmm this thread got derailed and hammerd..lol i plan to buy GW2 no matter wat any site or person say's. why?, plain and simple its a mmo that once ya buy it . it's yours forever to play online with no monthly sub's. i had GW sitting on steam for over 6 months before i decided to finally play guild wars trilogy and im enjoying the game now. i also plan to buy alganon just because itll be mine for good and i found that game interesting. One thing all people should remember is every1 is entiled to their own opnion reguardless if ya like it or not. remember we all cant agree on everything :-P
Skills : In a recent interview it was mentioned that weapon skills can drop from mobs, if that's the case then logic would follow that we have a choice on skills for our weapons, those 5 slots aren't stagnant, you will have a choice, 5 weapon skills, plus one heal, one elite and 3 of your choosing makes for plenty of choice.
Can you link that interview? This is the first I've heard of skills being dropped by mobs. Everything I've read says that skills are bought at the trainers or through quests.
ok so we get it everyone is a little sad about the removal of the second class system but do you all not remember that class skills in battle can work with one another......like i feel as if some people don't get this...if an ele uses a fire wall and a warrior spins through it with his axe then the fire wall spreads out in all directions....yeah 2 classes is cool but damn this system creates the need for a better focused team for PvP ..seems like a little GW to me
Skills : In a recent interview it was mentioned that weapon skills can drop from mobs, if that's the case then logic would follow that we have a choice on skills for our weapons, those 5 slots aren't stagnant, you will have a choice, 5 weapon skills, plus one heal, one elite and 3 of your choosing makes for plenty of choice.
Can you link that interview? This is the first I've heard of skills being dropped by mobs. Everything I've read says that skills are bought at the trainers or through quests.
"Moving to the topic of the skill bar design for a moment, will skill acquisition be an issue with the five weapon-related slots? Will you automatically pick up the skill knowledge with the weapon, or have to learn to use it?
Eric: Skills in Guild Wars 2 can be acquired in several ways. The primary method of skill acquisition is to visit a skill trainer where you may purchase skills. Skills may also be rewarded for completing different types of combat or gained as loot drops. Every skill in the game is acquired through one of these methods including weapon skills."
Honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of the 'buy skills from a trainer' mechanic. Not saying it's a bad system, just getting old.
Learn by doing is very exploitable, sure, I realize that.
What about being presented a choice of skills to learn after you level? Without having to travel back to town. Choose one and wait until next level for another.
I think character classes actually have too many skills - which leads to blurring them together and using bad ideas because all the good ones have already been used. WH Online reallly made this mistake - evidenced by each class getting 1/2 a dozen CC abilities.
I think the tendancy of blurring classes is due in part to the pandering to soloers. They want to be able to do everything, so they don't have to depend on anyone else.
The problem is that interdependence is what holds a society (community) together.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of the 'buy skills from a trainer' mechanic. Not saying it's a bad system, just getting old.
Learn by doing is very exploitable, sure, I realize that.
What about being presented a choice of skills to learn after you level? Without having to travel back to town. Choose one and wait until next level for another.
I think character classes actually have too many skills - which leads to blurring them together and using bad ideas because all the good ones have already been used. WH Online reallly made this mistake - evidenced by each class getting 1/2 a dozen CC abilities.
I think the tendancy of blurring classes is due in part to the pandering to soloers. They want to be able to do everything, so they don't have to depend on anyone else.
The problem is that interdependence is what holds a society (community) together.
They've already said gw2 will have less skills than gw1 with greater empahsis on the quality of each skill etc how they interact with other skills specific mechanics etc rather than quantity.
They calculated that the number of combinations is in the millions. And they may add more skills, creating more combinations.
From what I've heard, they're making an emphasis on skill synergy, so builds that work together across multiple characters for optimal power will certainly be more popular. They were in the original GW, but only the most hardcore players really used them. Also, this should make weapon swapping more interesting.
While GW2 will have less skills, ArenaNet is trying to get rid of bad builds, while keeping all the good builds. This is so newbies wont go into a fight carrying three skills that are completely redundant because of the skills he/she picked. But their system will still allow amazing players to make amazing builds.
And of course, if you don't like GW2, you can always go back to the original.
But remember, this is just my take on the information ArenaNet has released. They could just be hyping this game up to the point where it explodes.
You know what I will be able to do in Guild Wars 2 that I could not do in Guild Wars? Fire at someone with a bow, using skills dedicated to bow use, and then switch to a sword in melee range and have sword skills available for my use, without making half my skill bar useless for the duration. So, consider me a cheerleader for weapon skills based on that alone.
You will just have to find new ways to pwn monsters and people on the battlefield, and undoubtedly those with ingenuity will have no problem adjusting (I am NOT one of those people, mind; my example should be obvious to anyone who's thought about the weapon skill setup for .5 seconds).
They calculated that the number of combinations is in the millions. And they may add more skills, creating more combinations.
From what I've heard, they're making an emphasis on skill synergy, so builds that work together across multiple characters for optimal power will certainly be more popular. They were in the original GW, but only the most hardcore players really used them. Also, this should make weapon swapping more interesting.
While GW2 will have less skills, ArenaNet is trying to get rid of bad builds, while keeping all the good builds. This is so newbies wont go into a fight carrying three skills that are completely redundant because of the skills he/she picked. But their system will still allow amazing players to make amazing builds.
And of course, if you don't like GW2, you can always go back to the original.
But remember, this is just my take on the information ArenaNet has released. They could just be hyping this game up to the point where it explodes.
I don't mean I want a clone of GW1. What I mean is I want the dynamics of GW1 to still be present in some form or another. It seems that they're trying to make that happen. Right now my biggest concerns are the weapon options available to a given class (since they said all classes won't be able to use all weapons) and the lack of a so-called dedicated "healer" class. As long as I'm not tied down to using a staff or wand/focus on a caster and there are still viable options for a support-oriented character, it seems like the changes could work out well.
Because I did not see it quoted in the speculation about dedicated healers not being present in GW2: from here--
GW2Guru: It’s been implied that there may not be a ‘dedicated healer’ class in the game. Is that a role that some classes will excel at filling, or will that form of defense be spread across a team?
Isaiah Cartwright – Game Designer: Healing in GW2 is different from most other MMO’s. One of our goals is that you should always be happy to see other players and this shouldn’t change based on their profession, race, skill choices, or anything else. Which means each player needs to be slightly more self sufficient so that one particular profession is not required to do any given type of content. It’s why we made the healing slot a required part of the skill bar. It allows us to make the heal skill powerful enough so players can take care of themselves. There will still be ways to support your allies and some professions will specialize in support but no single profession is always required.
From the designer's mouth, the motivation is to prevent any one profession from being required in any given situation. I would ordinarily think that this would discourage group play if it weren't for the fact that dynamic events have been given so much air-time and copious examples presented as to how different professions benefit from working with one another, which serves to eliminate the "solo" mindset of other games where professions are self-sufficient with a self-heal.
Ultimately, although I feel for those who love to play healers and/or those who love to play classes that are "needed" in group play, I do not believe such dependencies are compatible with the casual-friendly (by which I mean easy to jump in-and-out as opposed to instant gratification) playstyle ANet seems inclined to provide.
From the designer's mouth, the motivation is to prevent any one profession from being required in any given situation. I would ordinarily think that this would discourage group play if it weren't for the fact that dynamic events have been given so much air-time and copious examples presented as to how different professions benefit from working with one another, which serves to eliminate the "solo" mindset of other games where professions are self-sufficient with a self-heal.
Ultimately, although I feel for those who love to play healers and/or those who love to play classes that are "needed" in group play, I do not believe such dependencies are compatible with the casual-friendly (by which I mean easy to jump in-and-out as opposed to instant gratification) playstyle ANet seems inclined to provide.
Agreed. It doesn't sound like a grouping game at all. WH Online's PQs were not grouping, and the GW2 events sound very similar. Very little co-operation or co-ordination. Honestly, this game is sounding more and more like a Blizzard game.
"One of our goals is that you should always be happy to see other players and this shouldn’t change based on their profession, race, skill choices, or anything else."
This really bothers me. If you don't care what other players' profession, race, and skill choices, that means they are irrelevant. That sure sounds like the direction WoW has taken.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Meh, there are other games out there if you don't like the direction of this game.
In my opinion it seems they are making it easier for casual grouping. And with skill combinations working from different players you can get some moments of discovery by grouping or playing with other players. I think some of you are taking this from a traditional mmo point of view, think out of the box for a moment.
Anyway, the guild wars franchise has always been about casual play (high end pvp notwithstanding). I'm sure there are some other more traditional games that could cater to your hardcore game style if that's what you prefer.
From the designer's mouth, the motivation is to prevent any one profession from being required in any given situation. I would ordinarily think that this would discourage group play if it weren't for the fact that dynamic events have been given so much air-time and copious examples presented as to how different professions benefit from working with one another, which serves to eliminate the "solo" mindset of other games where professions are self-sufficient with a self-heal.
Ultimately, although I feel for those who love to play healers and/or those who love to play classes that are "needed" in group play, I do not believe such dependencies are compatible with the casual-friendly (by which I mean easy to jump in-and-out as opposed to instant gratification) playstyle ANet seems inclined to provide.
Agreed. It doesn't sound like a grouping game at all. WH Online's PQs were not grouping, and the GW2 events sound very similar. Very little co-operation or co-ordination. Honestly, this game is sounding more and more like a Blizzard game.
That is not at all what I was saying. What I said was, "if it weren't for the fact that dynamic events have been given so much air-time and copious examples presented as to how different professions benefit from working with one another, which serves to eliminate the "solo" mindset of other games where professions are self-sufficient with a self-heal."
Hence I think GW2 promotes grouping just fine. They just wish to de-emphasize the concept of *required* classes in order for grouping and co-operative play to take place.
From the designer's mouth, the motivation is to prevent any one profession from being required in any given situation. I would ordinarily think that this would discourage group play if it weren't for the fact that dynamic events have been given so much air-time and copious examples presented as to how different professions benefit from working with one another, which serves to eliminate the "solo" mindset of other games where professions are self-sufficient with a self-heal.
Ultimately, although I feel for those who love to play healers and/or those who love to play classes that are "needed" in group play, I do not believe such dependencies are compatible with the casual-friendly (by which I mean easy to jump in-and-out as opposed to instant gratification) playstyle ANet seems inclined to provide.
Agreed. It doesn't sound like a grouping game at all. WH Online's PQs were not grouping, and the GW2 events sound very similar. Very little co-operation or co-ordination. Honestly, this game is sounding more and more like a Blizzard game.
"One of our goals is that you should always be happy to see other players and this shouldn’t change based on their profession, race, skill choices, or anything else."
This really bothers me. If you don't care what other players' profession, race, and skill choices, that means they are irrelevant. That sure sounds like the direction WoW has taken.
That is a completely wrong interpretation. What ANet want to happen is for people to group and be happy to see ANY player because that player will provide them with help. They don't want the situation of Bob turning up and being told to piss off because they already have one of his class.
WoW may be moving to homogenising their classes to support their "bring the player not the class" paradigm but it is not the paradigm that is wrong it is the implementation of it that is wrong. Trying to modify an existing game that was originally designed along the directly opposite theme is different from designing a game from the ground up with this in mind.
ANet want you to group, they just don't want discrimination to play a part in forming groups (quite a number of games these days are going this way - FFXIV and TSW both seem to be trying to get people to group without class restrictions as well).
From the designer's mouth, the motivation is to prevent any one profession from being required in any given situation. I would ordinarily think that this would discourage group play if it weren't for the fact that dynamic events have been given so much air-time and copious examples presented as to how different professions benefit from working with one another, which serves to eliminate the "solo" mindset of other games where professions are self-sufficient with a self-heal.
Ultimately, although I feel for those who love to play healers and/or those who love to play classes that are "needed" in group play, I do not believe such dependencies are compatible with the casual-friendly (by which I mean easy to jump in-and-out as opposed to instant gratification) playstyle ANet seems inclined to provide.
Agreed. It doesn't sound like a grouping game at all. WH Online's PQs were not grouping, and the GW2 events sound very similar. Very little co-operation or co-ordination. Honestly, this game is sounding more and more like a Blizzard game.
"One of our goals is that you should always be happy to see other players and this shouldn’t change based on their profession, race, skill choices, or anything else."
This really bothers me. If you don't care what other players' profession, race, and skill choices, that means they are irrelevant. That sure sounds like the direction WoW has taken.
That is a completely wrong interpretation. What ANet want to happen is for people to group and be happy to see ANY player because that player will provide them with help. They don't want the situation of Bob turning up and being told to piss off because they already have one of his class.
WoW may be moving to homogenising their classes to support their "bring the player not the class" paradigm but it is not the paradigm that is wrong it is the implementation of it that is wrong. Trying to modify an existing game that was originally designed along the directly opposite theme is different from designing a game from the ground up with this in mind.
ANet want you to group, they just don't want discrimination to play a part in forming groups (quite a number of games these days are going this way - FFXIV and TSW both seem to be trying to get people to group without class restrictions as well).
It does, however, limit the amount of depth that synergy offers. Building a puzzle with non-unique pieces, while simpler to the mastermind, is not able to yield the same beauty of a finished product.
I would concur that the homogenization in WoW is a different beast. With regards to GW2, how grouping will be handled- my thoughts are reserved for release. Being noted that it will be a deal-breaker, personally, if grouping ends up sucking a la WoW. Go go vanilla and FFXI.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
It does, however, limit the amount of depth that synergy offers. Building a puzzle with non-unique pieces, while simpler to the mastermind, is not able to yield the same beauty of a finished product.
I would concur that the homogenization in WoW is a different beast. With regards to GW2, how grouping will be handled- my thoughts are reserved for release. Being noted that it will be a deal-breaker, personally, if grouping ends up sucking a la WoW. Go go vanilla and FFXI.
I actually disagree quite a lot. I think that the artificial synergy of having overly restrictive classes will easily be replaced by a much more complex synergy based on skill choice and the way AN seem to be designing skills to work with each other. People will simply have to think a little more in skill choice and use. Instead of simply saying "nah we don't need another shaman".
TSW is going further and having no classes at all, but using an interesting "states" mechanic to provide this player synergy.
I think that the days of having to wait and wait until specific classes turn up for you to be able to proceed through a certain aspect of gameplay is dying out. This goes more into the whole "trinity" debate though.
I agree with some but disagree with quite a few as well.
Im still not understanding. You hate the idea of simplicity in WoW yet the fact that you wish that itemization/skills/levels remain simple like they were from GW.
Things do need to progress all in their own way. WoW did not event a level grind system at all. In fact they keep making it take less and less time more like GW. Mainly because of the focus on gear.
Attacking the idea of missions is another assumption not taking in with the facts that the quests you get are more like story book events. I understand you are worried that its going to be a dungeon gear grind. But from the things they have said quests are not merely walk up to the "?" and go kill 10 things and return. So for the over all feeling, I believe you should be ok with a feeling of accomplishment. You probably know all of this information as well and developed your own opinion.
However, from that I would say that it could be an issue with the gear. You may hate it, but most games' endgame today are focused on the gear. I myself love getting new gear from random creatures hunting in some unexplored area. However, focusing all the game gear on an end game grind of the same boss you did 20 times over and get nothing after wasting 4 hours of raiding... is work not fun. I found Diablo 2's system more entertaining for end game loot at times.(aside from the bots and dupes)
Auction house thing is a bit of a downer. It was great saving up mats for the right moment to sell them like a stock market. Wish they could keep the AH for some items and the merchant system for materials.
I'm seriously looking forward to playing GW 2. I've always said if they could take the world of Guild Wars and combine it with the World of Warcraft we would likely have the best mmorpg ever. Throw in some of the dynamic content that's being promised the possibilities are ....dare i say... epic !!??!!
It does, however, limit the amount of depth that synergy offers. Building a puzzle with non-unique pieces, while simpler to the mastermind, is not able to yield the same beauty of a finished product.
I would concur that the homogenization in WoW is a different beast. With regards to GW2, how grouping will be handled- my thoughts are reserved for release. Being noted that it will be a deal-breaker, personally, if grouping ends up sucking a la WoW. Go go vanilla and FFXI.
I actually disagree quite a lot. I think that the artificial synergy of having overly restrictive classes will easily be replaced by a much more complex synergy based on skill choice and the way AN seem to be designing skills to work with each other. People will simply have to think a little more in skill choice and use. Instead of simply saying "nah we don't need another shaman".
TSW is going further and having no classes at all, but using an interesting "states" mechanic to provide this player synergy.
I think that the days of having to wait and wait until specific classes turn up for you to be able to proceed through a certain aspect of gameplay is dying out. This goes more into the whole "trinity" debate though.
Hrmm, there is some merit, but it only goes so far. As you hint, this goes into such things as the 'trinity' debate.
Synergy: are the sum of the parts greater than the whole? Well, if I am a lawyer and you're a business man, yes. If we're both lawyers, no. If I'm a healer and you're a tank, yes. If we're both healers, no.
In the end, the most complete structures are the ones that boast the most diversity, and diversity promotes strength. NaCl, for example, being common salt. Comprised of two elements that are situated at complete opposite ends of the periodic table. The most performing cars have wheelbases that are spread to the tips of the chassis.
Synergy revolves around specialization. By definition, specialization has a limiter when you have repeats. Some of it might be artificial, agreed, but in the end, you're still being limited by the design.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Comments
OP, half of your original post is speculation. The majority of the rest is misinformation.
Take the level cap, for example. They've stated time and again that there will be a "power cap" of sorts where you will continue to gain levels, but you will not gain additional attributes or the like.
Much like the nonsense about the new skill system. You accuse them of being influenced by WoW, but proceed to describe a system completely different to WoW's. What's up with that?
1 - WoW was primarily developed by hundreds of programmers and artists not 3 guys. To attribute WoW to just 3 guys is insulting and disrespectful to the hard working programmers and artists.
2 - Only Jeff Strain actually worked on WoW. Patrick Wyatt and Mike O'Brien didnt work on WoW. They did game engines and Battle.net. That information is accessible in the link you provided.
3 - development of WoW began in 1999, the 3 founders of ArenaNet left Blizzard inApril 2000. Development of WoW took 5 years.
4 - Of the 3 founders of ArenaNet only Mike O'Brien is still with ArenaNet. Patrick Wyatt left to co-found EnMasse Entertainment(TERA) and Jeff Strain left to found Undead Labs(Zombie MMO).
Next time read your own link.
hrmm this thread got derailed and hammerd..lol i plan to buy GW2 no matter wat any site or person say's. why?, plain and simple its a mmo that once ya buy it . it's yours forever to play online with no monthly sub's. i had GW sitting on steam for over 6 months before i decided to finally play guild wars trilogy and im enjoying the game now. i also plan to buy alganon just because itll be mine for good and i found that game interesting. One thing all people should remember is every1 is entiled to their own opnion reguardless if ya like it or not. remember we all cant agree on everything :-P
Can you link that interview? This is the first I've heard of skills being dropped by mobs. Everything I've read says that skills are bought at the trainers or through quests.
ok so we get it everyone is a little sad about the removal of the second class system but do you all not remember that class skills in battle can work with one another......like i feel as if some people don't get this...if an ele uses a fire wall and a warrior spins through it with his axe then the fire wall spreads out in all directions....yeah 2 classes is cool but damn this system creates the need for a better focused team for PvP ..seems like a little GW to me
"Moving to the topic of the skill bar design for a moment, will skill acquisition be an issue with the five weapon-related slots? Will you automatically pick up the skill knowledge with the weapon, or have to learn to use it?
Eric: Skills in Guild Wars 2 can be acquired in several ways. The primary method of skill acquisition is to visit a skill trainer where you may purchase skills. Skills may also be rewarded for completing different types of combat or gained as loot drops. Every skill in the game is acquired through one of these methods including weapon skills."
http://www.massively.com/2010/05/28/massivelys-interview-with-the-guild-wars-2-design-team/
Ah ok thanks, guess I missed that when reading through the interviews.
Honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of the 'buy skills from a trainer' mechanic. Not saying it's a bad system, just getting old.
Learn by doing is very exploitable, sure, I realize that.
What about being presented a choice of skills to learn after you level? Without having to travel back to town. Choose one and wait until next level for another.
I think character classes actually have too many skills - which leads to blurring them together and using bad ideas because all the good ones have already been used. WH Online reallly made this mistake - evidenced by each class getting 1/2 a dozen CC abilities.
I think the tendancy of blurring classes is due in part to the pandering to soloers. They want to be able to do everything, so they don't have to depend on anyone else.
The problem is that interdependence is what holds a society (community) together.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
They've already said gw2 will have less skills than gw1 with greater empahsis on the quality of each skill etc how they interact with other skills specific mechanics etc rather than quantity.
Then just play GW1, silly!
But just in case you need some reassurance:
They calculated that the number of combinations is in the millions. And they may add more skills, creating more combinations.
From what I've heard, they're making an emphasis on skill synergy, so builds that work together across multiple characters for optimal power will certainly be more popular. They were in the original GW, but only the most hardcore players really used them. Also, this should make weapon swapping more interesting.
While GW2 will have less skills, ArenaNet is trying to get rid of bad builds, while keeping all the good builds. This is so newbies wont go into a fight carrying three skills that are completely redundant because of the skills he/she picked. But their system will still allow amazing players to make amazing builds.
And of course, if you don't like GW2, you can always go back to the original.
But remember, this is just my take on the information ArenaNet has released. They could just be hyping this game up to the point where it explodes.
This statement is false.
You know what I will be able to do in Guild Wars 2 that I could not do in Guild Wars? Fire at someone with a bow, using skills dedicated to bow use, and then switch to a sword in melee range and have sword skills available for my use, without making half my skill bar useless for the duration. So, consider me a cheerleader for weapon skills based on that alone.
You will just have to find new ways to pwn monsters and people on the battlefield, and undoubtedly those with ingenuity will have no problem adjusting (I am NOT one of those people, mind; my example should be obvious to anyone who's thought about the weapon skill setup for .5 seconds).
I don't mean I want a clone of GW1. What I mean is I want the dynamics of GW1 to still be present in some form or another. It seems that they're trying to make that happen. Right now my biggest concerns are the weapon options available to a given class (since they said all classes won't be able to use all weapons) and the lack of a so-called dedicated "healer" class. As long as I'm not tied down to using a staff or wand/focus on a caster and there are still viable options for a support-oriented character, it seems like the changes could work out well.
Because I did not see it quoted in the speculation about dedicated healers not being present in GW2: from here--
GW2Guru: It’s been implied that there may not be a ‘dedicated healer’ class in the game. Is that a role that some classes will excel at filling, or will that form of defense be spread across a team?
Isaiah Cartwright – Game Designer: Healing in GW2 is different from most other MMO’s. One of our goals is that you should always be happy to see other players and this shouldn’t change based on their profession, race, skill choices, or anything else. Which means each player needs to be slightly more self sufficient so that one particular profession is not required to do any given type of content. It’s why we made the healing slot a required part of the skill bar. It allows us to make the heal skill powerful enough so players can take care of themselves. There will still be ways to support your allies and some professions will specialize in support but no single profession is always required.
From the designer's mouth, the motivation is to prevent any one profession from being required in any given situation. I would ordinarily think that this would discourage group play if it weren't for the fact that dynamic events have been given so much air-time and copious examples presented as to how different professions benefit from working with one another, which serves to eliminate the "solo" mindset of other games where professions are self-sufficient with a self-heal.
Ultimately, although I feel for those who love to play healers and/or those who love to play classes that are "needed" in group play, I do not believe such dependencies are compatible with the casual-friendly (by which I mean easy to jump in-and-out as opposed to instant gratification) playstyle ANet seems inclined to provide.
Agreed. It doesn't sound like a grouping game at all. WH Online's PQs were not grouping, and the GW2 events sound very similar. Very little co-operation or co-ordination. Honestly, this game is sounding more and more like a Blizzard game.
"One of our goals is that you should always be happy to see other players and this shouldn’t change based on their profession, race, skill choices, or anything else."
This really bothers me. If you don't care what other players' profession, race, and skill choices, that means they are irrelevant. That sure sounds like the direction WoW has taken.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Meh, there are other games out there if you don't like the direction of this game.
In my opinion it seems they are making it easier for casual grouping. And with skill combinations working from different players you can get some moments of discovery by grouping or playing with other players. I think some of you are taking this from a traditional mmo point of view, think out of the box for a moment.
Anyway, the guild wars franchise has always been about casual play (high end pvp notwithstanding). I'm sure there are some other more traditional games that could cater to your hardcore game style if that's what you prefer.
Like every other damned MMO out there.
These games are now being made for FPS fans.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
From what I recall the final fantasy mmo was pretty hardcore group based game. Perhaps the new one would cater to that audience.
That is a completely wrong interpretation. What ANet want to happen is for people to group and be happy to see ANY player because that player will provide them with help. They don't want the situation of Bob turning up and being told to piss off because they already have one of his class.
WoW may be moving to homogenising their classes to support their "bring the player not the class" paradigm but it is not the paradigm that is wrong it is the implementation of it that is wrong. Trying to modify an existing game that was originally designed along the directly opposite theme is different from designing a game from the ground up with this in mind.
ANet want you to group, they just don't want discrimination to play a part in forming groups (quite a number of games these days are going this way - FFXIV and TSW both seem to be trying to get people to group without class restrictions as well).
It does, however, limit the amount of depth that synergy offers. Building a puzzle with non-unique pieces, while simpler to the mastermind, is not able to yield the same beauty of a finished product.
I would concur that the homogenization in WoW is a different beast. With regards to GW2, how grouping will be handled- my thoughts are reserved for release. Being noted that it will be a deal-breaker, personally, if grouping ends up sucking a la WoW. Go go vanilla and FFXI.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I actually disagree quite a lot. I think that the artificial synergy of having overly restrictive classes will easily be replaced by a much more complex synergy based on skill choice and the way AN seem to be designing skills to work with each other. People will simply have to think a little more in skill choice and use. Instead of simply saying "nah we don't need another shaman".
TSW is going further and having no classes at all, but using an interesting "states" mechanic to provide this player synergy.
I think that the days of having to wait and wait until specific classes turn up for you to be able to proceed through a certain aspect of gameplay is dying out. This goes more into the whole "trinity" debate though.
I agree with some but disagree with quite a few as well.
Im still not understanding. You hate the idea of simplicity in WoW yet the fact that you wish that itemization/skills/levels remain simple like they were from GW.
Things do need to progress all in their own way. WoW did not event a level grind system at all. In fact they keep making it take less and less time more like GW. Mainly because of the focus on gear.
Attacking the idea of missions is another assumption not taking in with the facts that the quests you get are more like story book events. I understand you are worried that its going to be a dungeon gear grind. But from the things they have said quests are not merely walk up to the "?" and go kill 10 things and return. So for the over all feeling, I believe you should be ok with a feeling of accomplishment. You probably know all of this information as well and developed your own opinion.
However, from that I would say that it could be an issue with the gear. You may hate it, but most games' endgame today are focused on the gear. I myself love getting new gear from random creatures hunting in some unexplored area. However, focusing all the game gear on an end game grind of the same boss you did 20 times over and get nothing after wasting 4 hours of raiding... is work not fun. I found Diablo 2's system more entertaining for end game loot at times.(aside from the bots and dupes)
Auction house thing is a bit of a downer. It was great saving up mats for the right moment to sell them like a stock market. Wish they could keep the AH for some items and the merchant system for materials.
- ya I'm here
I'm seriously looking forward to playing GW 2. I've always said if they could take the world of Guild Wars and combine it with the World of Warcraft we would likely have the best mmorpg ever. Throw in some of the dynamic content that's being promised the possibilities are ....dare i say... epic !!??!!
Hrmm, there is some merit, but it only goes so far. As you hint, this goes into such things as the 'trinity' debate.
Synergy: are the sum of the parts greater than the whole? Well, if I am a lawyer and you're a business man, yes. If we're both lawyers, no. If I'm a healer and you're a tank, yes. If we're both healers, no.
In the end, the most complete structures are the ones that boast the most diversity, and diversity promotes strength. NaCl, for example, being common salt. Comprised of two elements that are situated at complete opposite ends of the periodic table. The most performing cars have wheelbases that are spread to the tips of the chassis.
Synergy revolves around specialization. By definition, specialization has a limiter when you have repeats. Some of it might be artificial, agreed, but in the end, you're still being limited by the design.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
GW2 is more like WoW? If you think that's true i won't try to prove you wrong.
All i know is GW2 seems like it will be a good game regardless of it's so-called similarities with WoW.
@MMO_Doubter
Hey dude. Your name speaks for itself. I won't ask you to change. Doubt GW2 all you want.
People here have to chill with GW2 being similar to WoW. Then again, this is mmorpg.com. That won't happen anytime soon.
"Some people feel the rain. Others just get wet." -Bob Marley
I'm probably one of those people who just get wet.