I find it funny as well since there are so many gw1 players that swear by it, but I played gw pvp at a top level and it wasn't even as challenging as roaming pvp in most mmorpgs. People just need to get exposed to more games I guess.
I find the PvP in Eve to be generally boring and the combat easy and simple. There are many games where player skill means very little and Eve is one of those games. A lot more emphasis is on who bring more stuff to the battlefield - non-skill factor. Why would I care to play those games? GW was and is a rarity in the fact that it puts heavy emphasis on player skill rather than gear, level or numbers. I find this more challenging.
In what game is roaming PvP more challenging and why? Roaming usually means ganking and camping to me and usually there is a lot of non-skill factors involved. I find no challenge in kicking one weaker than me, nor do I find it fun to constantly avoid being ganked myself.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
On the other end of the argument if GW2 does not provide enough content, or the mechanics are not intuitive enough, it will reaffirm the P2P model.
GW1 did not have a lot of content, we will see where GW2 stands, but if people can max out characters quickly and the end-game is 5man pve and competitive pvp, that isn't going to compete well with other mmorpgs, as pvers make up the bulk of the market, and 5man pve does not really cater to the MMO aspect of MMORPGs.
Sure if you are comparing GW2 to mainstream MMO's then it won't compare at all. It looks to play more like an action type game than an MMO.
I disagree with the 5 man PVE notion. 5 man allows smaller groups to go through the same or similar content without the need to Pug as would be traditional if they were not part of a large guild / alliance. This part applies only to raids. The rest of the game is open to single or group play, after all that stuff scales.
I am sure that GW2 probably won't appeal to the Hardcore PVE as they tend to focus on the endgame specifically the elite raids for item drops. GW2 loot mechanic doesn't work like this. Hardcore also tends toward the grind side of MMO's so again GW2 with its anit-grind probably won't appeal to these players long term. This is not to say they won't purchase it and try it. After all thats what Anet wants is box sales. Once they have it the game will sell itself. The purchases either will like it or not.
Again there is much that differs in GW2 to mainstream MMORPG. GW2 is a deliberate break from the mould. They aren't trying to be like every other MMO. The game appeals to many and because of that some MMO players may not find GW2 exclusive enough.
As for the endgame and 5 man raids. Probably best to wait and see seeing there is zero info this to date.
The game may be constructed in a way where all the elements are put together to make gw2 into gw2 instead of wow.
I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model. Basically just make everything casual friendly and polished and see how many fish you can reel in. Which is fine, every person that likes playing games deserves a game that caters to them, it just isn't really all that groundbreaking.
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's the messiah of mmo's but it is definitely more 'breaking the mould' than games like ToR, which seem intent on copying wow exactly and tacking on a story. Guild wars 2 will share fundamentals with traditional MMORPG's, but at least it tries to mix thing up a little.
games don't suddenly jump in terms of construction, they are build up over time. Guild wars 2 looks like it's trying to evolve the genre with regards to the social aspect (MMO's aren't social until the very end, i personally hate seeing anyone where i'm having to kill 200 rats, because they steal the rats, it's how mmo's always are. I only enjoy mmo's with RL friends because in game it's all pvp all the time (even in pve!)). If it works it'll be great and even if it isn't as content rich as 6 year old p2p mmo's it'll give them food for thought on what mechanics really work and improve the game.
The hype for this game isn't actually for the game itself, I feel it's for it's attempt to finally evolve this genre that's been getting gradually wose and more stagnant since 2004. I used to love mmo's, now gw1 is the only one i can stand because it's all just the same otherwise. I'm not going to play for 4000 [quick note: that's easily enough time to get a 1st class degree in something like physics learning from GCSE onwards, yet how many '1337' wow players have anything to show out of it?] hours to to become really competetive at anything. I have life to attend to as well
Well from an objective point of view it actually does seem like a lot of fans, and also anet themselves are trying endorse the game as a messiah of mmos. Basically anet attacked a lot of fundamental mechanics found in mmos, and then tried to convey that they are doing things differently, but under all the fluff a lot of it is very similar. Harpy glands and dynamic event alerters for example.
if you don't have recognisable quests that people are familiar with they get very confused, it's one of the first things they changed in gw2 when they started using randomers to test the game. They originally had no such quests (again, the developer conference video is fantastic for such things, you obviously haven't watched it or have skimmed it, because many points you bring up were addressed fully as to why they are there, and most of it is because of the stagnant mmo genre leading to confused players when they first set foot in tyria without these quests).
You are misinformed if you think GW1 popularized the arena format, and is the reason for arena tournaments. That would be like saying coutnerstrike popularized gw1 pvp.
As I said before a lot of gw1 players like to exaggerate the impact their game had, the mmorpg market doesn't even really pay attention to gw1 whatsoever, hell most of the players didn't even know anything about gw1. It's a complete nonfactor to wow players.
WoW introduced their version of GW's GvG after GW's launch. The one with two bases and something to be summoned in the middle? -Straight out of GW. I remember clearly when I talked with a WoW fan at the time and he was excited about this new PvP-mode. I asked him to describe it and I pointed out that GW has had something similar for quite some time. Even he couldn't refute the similarity between them!
It is no secret that WoW copies everything out there. The average WoW player has no idea of where each of the features originate and why should they care? That proves nothing. Only that WoW players are ignorant. -I don't hold it against them. Again, why should they care?
It is your word against mine once more, and who is to say, for certain, that WoW developed its arenas more in the direction that GW had because of GW. I didn't claim that GW popularized arena format. I am suggesting that it gave WoW the nudge to popularize arena format. In any case, only thing certain is that GW did it first. One can make their own interpretations after that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You are misinformed if you think GW1 popularized the arena format, and is the reason for arena tournaments. That would be like saying coutnerstrike popularized gw1 pvp.
As I said before a lot of gw1 players like to exaggerate the impact their game had, the mmorpg market doesn't even really pay attention to gw1 whatsoever, hell most of the players didn't even know anything about gw1. It's a complete nonfactor to wow players.
WoW introduced their version of GW's GvG after GW's launch. The one with two bases and something to be summoned in the middle? -Straight out of GW. I remember clearly when I talked with a WoW fan at the time and he was excited about this new PvP-mode. I asked him to describe it and I pointed out that GW has had something similar for quite some time. Even he couldn't refute the similarity between them!
It is no secret that WoW copies everything out there. The average WoW player has no idea of where each of the features originate and why should they care? That proves nothing. Only that WoW players are ignorant. -I don't hold it against them. Again, why should they care?
It is your word against mine once more, and who is to say, for certain, that WoW developed its arenas more in the direction that GW had because of GW. I didn't claim that GW popularized arena format. I am suggesting that it gave WoW the nudge to popularize arena format. In any case, only thing certain is that GW did it first. One can make their own interpretations after that.
It seems i am always having to clarify the same things over and over again, you are not the first gw1 fan that thinks wow copies gw1.
First off Blizzard has on their development team many members from EQ1 top guilds. They also have on their team people from shadowbane pvp guilds that transitioned into becoming famous wow-beta/live guilds. (Nurfed for example)
In EQ they had server vs server events called test of tactics, this was team based pvp. Furthermore in shadowbane the top pvp mmorpg guilds migrated to the server scorn when the game launched, on scorn there were big XvX tournaments held. The only reason you didn't see emphasis in arena pvp in wow when the game launched is because the game is first and foremost a pve game, they implemented arena later on when battlegrounds weren't cutting it anymore and they've even been quoted as saying they regret implementing it when they did because it split the focus of the game and caused too many balance headaches. So please do not try to claim WoW stole the concept of their arena pvp (which is basically team deathmatch btw) from gw, they have players in charge of their game that have participated in such things since long before gw ever came out. Also the only battleground where you can summon giant monsters is alterac valley, and the summoning wasn't even originally implemented. Are you trying to say gw1 takes credit for the whole concept of summoning monsters? Sorry mmorpgs have been doing it since long before anet was even established.
Originally posted by arenasb
I find funny that you equate skill with mmorpg pvp. There is nothing skilful when there is a gear diferential. In order for skill to shine there must be balance on all sides, that means gear and other timesink functions of game are nonexistent. When everyone is on an equal playing field then you can account for skill.
Good players don't have trouble getting gear, and gear is so easy to come by in the more popular mmorpgs that that is only an excuse that bad players make when they get owned.
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
I think old school dungeon crawlers and world explorers and collection quest people will dig more on Rift personally. But maybe not neither are out yet.
I agree with this - I think Rift is more "suited" to get the attention of hardcore raiders, open, ganking-enabled PvP, and seamless world afficionados. If it releases in a polished, content-rich state, I think Rift will steal all those players away from their existing games (with the possible/probable exception of WoW).
I think old school dungeon crawlers and world explorers and collection quest people will dig more on Rift personally. But maybe not neither are out yet.
I fall under the category of old school dungeon crawlers and world explorers.. But please don't forget to mention a captivating storyline, a challenging experience with a real sense of accomplishment kind of mmorpg as well.. So yes, Rifts is on my #1 list of fantasy themed MMORPG's of the future. Although, I have to admit, Guild Wars 2 does look pretty good as well. I'll keep an eye on it, but I highly doubt I'll break my NO f2p rule for it,,, however, you never know.
Rallithon Oakthornn (Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
I'm a hardcore PvE-er, but no longer a raider. There's a difference as the latter is concerned only with grinding the same content over and over for a drop, with the biggest challenge being a logistical one, rather than a tactical one. It sounds as if this type of gameplay is not only discouraged but also actively avoided in development. Sounds perfect. I've read that the end-game, five-man content is intended to be very difficult and will require a lot more teamwork than the open world stuff, so there's a challenge without having to herd a bunch of idiots into the instance entrance and have them all focus on the same task for the next two hours. Ok, that is a challenge, but one that's boring as hell unless you're a masochist.
Nothing has really been confirmed for end-game yet, so everything is speculation. But if the encounter with the Shatterer, an open-world, mid-range under-boss is any indication, it looks like true dungeon bosses may be spectacular and offer a really great PvE experience. I *think* I also read somewhere that dungeons would be dynamic so there's no way of putting together "the optimal group" for any encounter as it will change with each iteration. Developing tactics on the fly tactics is a step forward when compared to other games' end-game content. Please cite the source if anyone else has come across it.
I'm expecting there will be plenty of content to keep us PvE-types busy, without having to rely on traditional raid-style grindfests.
I vaguely recall something like this and that could be the "twist" that ArenaNet mentioned.
Distinction between Raiding v Other Hardcore PvE is interesting. Overall, does seem the design is antithetical to classic hardcore PvE eg Grind, Timesink, Gear Race, Raid, ... , ... are eliminated or reduced by degree.
Regarding the merits of hardcore PvP... that's another sub-discussion which I read through (above). There is not enough information on PvP (barely any releases) to make substantiated points.
But, in general expectations:-
1. Structured PvP does seem to have a highly-regarded pedigree
2. Structured PvP does seem to address some of THE 7 DEADLY SINS OF MMO PVP [Edit: I'll dig up a great list I saw later]
3. Structured PvP splitting from PvE skill should enhance skill in PvP and help with balancing.
4. World PvP could be as popular as DAOC's famous RvR.
Fundamentally, balance of skills in PvP has got to be closer to FPS games for skill to shine (see deadly sins) so some limitation on skill bars seems a step towards going closer to this, it would seem to me. I don't see that as a viable argument to the contrary?
IE: A small set of rules can interact in the most complex and diverse ways is observed phenomenon in nature, mathematics, games etc.
GW2 Is ganna beeee aaaawwesssomeeee!!! OMGOMGOGMOGMOGMOGMOGMOMGOM!
-The graphics!
-You can jump!
-THE COMBAT
-THE QUESTS
-THE DIVERCITY!
GW2 will be aweomseeeee!
this is why you can't put a poll up about GW2 and expect to get a serious result. of course the fanboys are going to say yes. i personally don't think it will. i'll be glad if it doesn't though.
What does casual game mean? What does hardcore game mean? I asked a similar question on the very first page and only one person has responded with it. So I am assuming his was the correct answer. A hardcore gamer is one who invests more time within that game. Is there a cutoff? What determines it? What are the parameters.
In my opinion, these are archaic terms. Really, instead of hardcore and casual, we should be using the terms competitive and non-competitive.
I started a small list of the sort of things maybe a hardcore PvE player might do or expect aspects of: Grind, Time Sink, Gear escalation, Raid, Exclusive and hard End-Game... but I am no hardcore/competitive/experienced PvE'er.
I'm sure there are players who could define this more clearly?!
Here's a small bit of info on the StrcturedPvP from an interview, but I could not find that list of problems with MMO PvP:
GW2Guru: Can you tell us about any of the ’structured PvP’ formats?
Ryan Scott – Game Designer: While we’re not ready to release all the details on structured PVP yet, there is some information we can share.
First of all, it’s important to clarify that Structured PvP and World versus World are very different beasts. WvW will take your current character – as is – and have them join an ongoing, large-scale battle to win rewards for their world. Structured PvP will equalize everyone’s character level and unlock all options from the start to have two teams fight in a fair, instanced game.
We’ve mentioned before that we’re taking some cues from first-person shooters with how we’ll handle PvP in GW2. This, specifically, means a few things:
? GW2’s PvP will use the same formats for both pick-up/random and tournament play. Gone are the days of different game modes for differing skill levels, so players can learn skills that are relevant in all levels of competition.
? Pick-up play is 100% hot-joinable. You can leave or join a game already in progress, and the game modes and types will be built to support this. This removes the catch-22 of groups disallowing newer players to join, when those same players can’t get better because they can’t find a group. Tournaments will also be supported, so arranged teams will be able to face off in a competitive setting.
? Since games are hot-join, we want to add support for micro-communities to have some control over the type of play environment they want, while in turn letting all players seek out the experience they enjoy. We’ll be releasing more details on how we’re doing this later this year.
GW1 has a legacy of having strong PvP and competition, and we’re going to great lengths to make GW2 the best PvP MMO on the market by leaps and bounds.
What does casual game mean? What does hardcore game mean? I asked a similar question on the very first page and only one person has responded with it. So I am assuming his was the correct answer. A hardcore gamer is one who invests more time within that game. Is there a cutoff? What determines it? What are the parameters.
In my opinion, these are archaic terms. Really, instead of hardcore and casual, we should be using the terms competitive and non-competitive.
Compare gaming to other "hobbies" out there. Anyone who devotes 10-15h/week or more to a hobby would be considered "hardcore" aka "very serious".
If I went jogging/running 15h a week, that would be 2-3h a DAY, that would be considered pretty freakin hardcore. Same with going to the gym... if you know someone who went to the gym 2h a day 7days/week, they'd be consider pretty hardcore as well. What if I got together with my band 4 times a week for 3-4h each night for practice and some live shows? People would say we take our music pretty seriously. What about someone going to the race-track that often, or painting, or whatever other hobby you can come up with? They would be hardcore.
A friend of mine plays video games for 1-3 hours every tuesday night. We both consider him casual. But I find it tremendously humerous that you can find MMORPG players who play 20-30 hours a week and consider themselves 'casual'. I laugh, because you can't do anything for that many hours and consider yourself a casual. Just plug in any of the other hobbies into that sentence and tell me how anyone would consider it 'casual'. You can't, yet for some reason MMORPG players try.
At the same time, you can use your "competetive" and "non-competitive" definition, and examine how "seriously" people take their hobbies. Some people consider their painting or their motorcycle racing pretty freakin seriously, even though they only do it for 2-3 hours a week. So in that sense it's possible to be hardcore and invest very little time into something. But I don't believe the reverse can be true -- you can't sink 30 hours of your week into something after work, sleep, friends/family, etc and not be considered hardcore. At that point it may as well be your 2nd (unpaid) job.
this is why you can't put a poll up about GW2 and expect to get a serious result. of course the fanboys are going to say yes. i personally don't think it will. i'll be glad if it doesn't though.
Hmm, doesn't the same apply to all the polls of upcoming games and expansions, like Rift, CATA, TERA, SWTOR, GW2, and the other ones? You'll have fanbois and haters responding and everything in between.
What other posters mentioned is an interesting question, what is hardcore, what is casual? It's very subjective I think, competitive and non-competitive sound right to me. I can see the arena PvP and the World vs World PvP become very competitive indeed.
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."
WIll Hardcore MMORPG gaming crowd be interested in Guild Wars 2?
Hardcore PvP?
Hardcore PvE?
and everything that comes with it?
Hey Hardcore MMORPG players,,, I know you been yapping and QQing for a few years, but do you think you will find interest in Guild Wars 2?
I consider my self a hard core player and even Guild Wars was appealing to me. For PvP i vote yes since there will be World vs World pvp especially similar to Daoc. Pve i'm not so sure because they said it will take approximately 1.5hours to level up no matter if you are level 40 or level 79. From my calculations I could get to max level in 1-2 weeks and even though I have no idea what end game is going to be like in pve I have a feeling it won't keep me interested for very long especially that weapons aren't like in wow but are very similar in strength to reduce grinding for them. I think that most hardcores players will be mostly interested in World vs World pvp since I heard it will last for weeks each time and sounds very exciting!
I think that most hardcores players will be mostly interested in World vs World pvp since I heard it will last for weeks each time and sounds very exciting!
Yep, for a week your server will be pitted against 2 other ones in a contest over 5+ areas in the Mists, and each week it'll be 2 different servers that you're in contest with.
But don't forget the arena PvP, it'll be engaging too especially with the rankings and such. Arena PvP could be pretty intense with the varied team setups that your team could encounter.
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."
I haven't read the whole thread (there's a lot to go through), so forgive me if some things are rehashed.
"Hardcore" means different things to different people.
The GW2 team has talked pvp a little bit: the WvWvW fighting is to be the "casual" form of pvp, where anyone can participate and make an impact. These Server battles are supposed to go on for at least a week, before everything resets.
The GvG battles are ALWAYS gonna be the hardcore in Guild Wars. The best teams will be on voice-comms, and know each other like their own asses. Charts will go on the website. Guilds will be known.
PvE in Guild Wars will appeal to a wide variety. I can't speak for the "hard-core" pve players....as I can't define it. Perma-death? 2 years to max-level? Necessary to group to level?
My guess is that PvE hardcore will NOT be catered to. They're trying to sell boxes, not get subs from the hardcore (ala Eve)
Also the only battleground where you can summon giant monsters is alterac valley, and the summoning wasn't even originally implemented. Are you trying to say gw1 takes credit for the whole concept of summoning monsters? Sorry mmorpgs have been doing it since long before anet was even established.
The underlined comment suggests that you haven't played GvG in GW. GW equalent for "summoning monsters" in the middle is the flag stand. It is about holding the middleground to get an advantage. You should know this. It might as well be a cooking pot and when it boils the defending team gets yummy soup. How can you be from a top guild if you haven't played GvG?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think that most hardcores players will be mostly interested in World vs World pvp since I heard it will last for weeks each time and sounds very exciting!
Yep, for a week your server will be pitted against 2 other ones in a contest over 5+ areas in the Mists, and each week it'll be 2 different servers that you're in contest with.
But don't forget the arena PvP, it'll be engaging too especially with the rankings and such. Arena PvP could be pretty intense with the varied team setups that your team could encounter.
Indeed, if GW2 sets it's pvp up right (especially the WvWvW) then many 'hardcore' pvpers will get it, even if it's to play alongside their main mmos.
A certain poster in this thread seems to think that hardcore pvpers wont bother with this game, as someone who is only interested in pvp, who plays/has played the most pvp centric mmos and FPS games (and as someone who knows many other players with the same tastes) I can state catagorically that many are indeed looking at this game with interest.
It 'touch wood', should provide instant access arenas and large numbers in world pvp, something that sits nicely alongside the usual remit of FFA full loot hardcore games. It's the likes of Aion and other detritus that serious pvpers tend to lol at and avoid.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
I wish I knew what "hardcore" meant also.
Is hardcore a function of "skill", "time-invested", "money-invested".... ?
In my opinion, anyone who plays more that 15 hours of video games per WEEK is "hardcore".
I can tell you it wasn't easy to compete against the top guilds but I guess it's your word against mine, huh? Meet the Valandor 1st in the European qualifiers 5-6th in the GWWC Aim for the Stars -competition only one to beat it
I find the PvP in Eve to be generally boring and the combat easy and simple. There are many games where player skill means very little and Eve is one of those games. A lot more emphasis is on who bring more stuff to the battlefield - non-skill factor. Why would I care to play those games? GW was and is a rarity in the fact that it puts heavy emphasis on player skill rather than gear, level or numbers. I find this more challenging.
In what game is roaming PvP more challenging and why? Roaming usually means ganking and camping to me and usually there is a lot of non-skill factors involved. I find no challenge in kicking one weaker than me, nor do I find it fun to constantly avoid being ganked myself.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
if you don't have recognisable quests that people are familiar with they get very confused, it's one of the first things they changed in gw2 when they started using randomers to test the game. They originally had no such quests (again, the developer conference video is fantastic for such things, you obviously haven't watched it or have skimmed it, because many points you bring up were addressed fully as to why they are there, and most of it is because of the stagnant mmo genre leading to confused players when they first set foot in tyria without these quests).
WoW introduced their version of GW's GvG after GW's launch. The one with two bases and something to be summoned in the middle? -Straight out of GW. I remember clearly when I talked with a WoW fan at the time and he was excited about this new PvP-mode. I asked him to describe it and I pointed out that GW has had something similar for quite some time. Even he couldn't refute the similarity between them!
It is no secret that WoW copies everything out there. The average WoW player has no idea of where each of the features originate and why should they care? That proves nothing. Only that WoW players are ignorant. -I don't hold it against them. Again, why should they care?
It is your word against mine once more, and who is to say, for certain, that WoW developed its arenas more in the direction that GW had because of GW. I didn't claim that GW popularized arena format. I am suggesting that it gave WoW the nudge to popularize arena format. In any case, only thing certain is that GW did it first. One can make their own interpretations after that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It seems i am always having to clarify the same things over and over again, you are not the first gw1 fan that thinks wow copies gw1.
First off Blizzard has on their development team many members from EQ1 top guilds. They also have on their team people from shadowbane pvp guilds that transitioned into becoming famous wow-beta/live guilds. (Nurfed for example)
In EQ they had server vs server events called test of tactics, this was team based pvp. Furthermore in shadowbane the top pvp mmorpg guilds migrated to the server scorn when the game launched, on scorn there were big XvX tournaments held. The only reason you didn't see emphasis in arena pvp in wow when the game launched is because the game is first and foremost a pve game, they implemented arena later on when battlegrounds weren't cutting it anymore and they've even been quoted as saying they regret implementing it when they did because it split the focus of the game and caused too many balance headaches. So please do not try to claim WoW stole the concept of their arena pvp (which is basically team deathmatch btw) from gw, they have players in charge of their game that have participated in such things since long before gw ever came out. Also the only battleground where you can summon giant monsters is alterac valley, and the summoning wasn't even originally implemented. Are you trying to say gw1 takes credit for the whole concept of summoning monsters? Sorry mmorpgs have been doing it since long before anet was even established.
Good players don't have trouble getting gear, and gear is so easy to come by in the more popular mmorpgs that that is only an excuse that bad players make when they get owned.
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
Isn't that a given since there's no sub fee?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I agree with this - I think Rift is more "suited" to get the attention of hardcore raiders, open, ganking-enabled PvP, and seamless world afficionados. If it releases in a polished, content-rich state, I think Rift will steal all those players away from their existing games (with the possible/probable exception of WoW).
Vanguard will probably fully fold at that point.
I fall under the category of old school dungeon crawlers and world explorers.. But please don't forget to mention a captivating storyline, a challenging experience with a real sense of accomplishment kind of mmorpg as well.. So yes, Rifts is on my #1 list of fantasy themed MMORPG's of the future. Although, I have to admit, Guild Wars 2 does look pretty good as well. I'll keep an eye on it, but I highly doubt I'll break my NO f2p rule for it,,, however, you never know.
Rallithon Oakthornn
(Retired Heirophant of the 60th season)
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I vaguely recall something like this and that could be the "twist" that ArenaNet mentioned.
Distinction between Raiding v Other Hardcore PvE is interesting. Overall, does seem the design is antithetical to classic hardcore PvE eg Grind, Timesink, Gear Race, Raid, ... , ... are eliminated or reduced by degree.
Regarding the merits of hardcore PvP... that's another sub-discussion which I read through (above). There is not enough information on PvP (barely any releases) to make substantiated points.
But, in general expectations:-
1. Structured PvP does seem to have a highly-regarded pedigree
2. Structured PvP does seem to address some of THE 7 DEADLY SINS OF MMO PVP [Edit: I'll dig up a great list I saw later]
3. Structured PvP splitting from PvE skill should enhance skill in PvP and help with balancing.
4. World PvP could be as popular as DAOC's famous RvR.
Fundamentally, balance of skills in PvP has got to be closer to FPS games for skill to shine (see deadly sins) so some limitation on skill bars seems a step towards going closer to this, it would seem to me. I don't see that as a viable argument to the contrary?
IE: A small set of rules can interact in the most complex and diverse ways is observed phenomenon in nature, mathematics, games etc.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
this is why you can't put a poll up about GW2 and expect to get a serious result. of course the fanboys are going to say yes. i personally don't think it will. i'll be glad if it doesn't though.
I too, will pass on GW2 and get Rift instead...
It will be a casual game mainly because its b2p.
What does casual game mean? What does hardcore game mean? I asked a similar question on the very first page and only one person has responded with it. So I am assuming his was the correct answer. A hardcore gamer is one who invests more time within that game. Is there a cutoff? What determines it? What are the parameters.
In my opinion, these are archaic terms. Really, instead of hardcore and casual, we should be using the terms competitive and non-competitive.
I started a small list of the sort of things maybe a hardcore PvE player might do or expect aspects of: Grind, Time Sink, Gear escalation, Raid, Exclusive and hard End-Game... but I am no hardcore/competitive/experienced PvE'er.
I'm sure there are players who could define this more clearly?!
Here's a small bit of info on the StrcturedPvP from an interview, but I could not find that list of problems with MMO PvP:
GW2Guru: Can you tell us about any of the ’structured PvP’ formats?
Ryan Scott – Game Designer: While we’re not ready to release all the details on structured PVP yet, there is some information we can share.
First of all, it’s important to clarify that Structured PvP and World versus World are very different beasts. WvW will take your current character – as is – and have them join an ongoing, large-scale battle to win rewards for their world. Structured PvP will equalize everyone’s character level and unlock all options from the start to have two teams fight in a fair, instanced game.
We’ve mentioned before that we’re taking some cues from first-person shooters with how we’ll handle PvP in GW2. This, specifically, means a few things:
? GW2’s PvP will use the same formats for both pick-up/random and tournament play. Gone are the days of different game modes for differing skill levels, so players can learn skills that are relevant in all levels of competition.
? Pick-up play is 100% hot-joinable. You can leave or join a game already in progress, and the game modes and types will be built to support this. This removes the catch-22 of groups disallowing newer players to join, when those same players can’t get better because they can’t find a group. Tournaments will also be supported, so arranged teams will be able to face off in a competitive setting.
? Since games are hot-join, we want to add support for micro-communities to have some control over the type of play environment they want, while in turn letting all players seek out the experience they enjoy. We’ll be releasing more details on how we’re doing this later this year.
GW1 has a legacy of having strong PvP and competition, and we’re going to great lengths to make GW2 the best PvP MMO on the market by leaps and bounds.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Compare gaming to other "hobbies" out there. Anyone who devotes 10-15h/week or more to a hobby would be considered "hardcore" aka "very serious".
If I went jogging/running 15h a week, that would be 2-3h a DAY, that would be considered pretty freakin hardcore. Same with going to the gym... if you know someone who went to the gym 2h a day 7days/week, they'd be consider pretty hardcore as well. What if I got together with my band 4 times a week for 3-4h each night for practice and some live shows? People would say we take our music pretty seriously. What about someone going to the race-track that often, or painting, or whatever other hobby you can come up with? They would be hardcore.
A friend of mine plays video games for 1-3 hours every tuesday night. We both consider him casual. But I find it tremendously humerous that you can find MMORPG players who play 20-30 hours a week and consider themselves 'casual'. I laugh, because you can't do anything for that many hours and consider yourself a casual. Just plug in any of the other hobbies into that sentence and tell me how anyone would consider it 'casual'. You can't, yet for some reason MMORPG players try.
At the same time, you can use your "competetive" and "non-competitive" definition, and examine how "seriously" people take their hobbies. Some people consider their painting or their motorcycle racing pretty freakin seriously, even though they only do it for 2-3 hours a week. So in that sense it's possible to be hardcore and invest very little time into something. But I don't believe the reverse can be true -- you can't sink 30 hours of your week into something after work, sleep, friends/family, etc and not be considered hardcore. At that point it may as well be your 2nd (unpaid) job.
Just my 2 cents.
Hmm, doesn't the same apply to all the polls of upcoming games and expansions, like Rift, CATA, TERA, SWTOR, GW2, and the other ones? You'll have fanbois and haters responding and everything in between.
What other posters mentioned is an interesting question, what is hardcore, what is casual? It's very subjective I think, competitive and non-competitive sound right to me. I can see the arena PvP and the World vs World PvP become very competitive indeed.
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."
I consider my self a hard core player and even Guild Wars was appealing to me. For PvP i vote yes since there will be World vs World pvp especially similar to Daoc. Pve i'm not so sure because they said it will take approximately 1.5hours to level up no matter if you are level 40 or level 79. From my calculations I could get to max level in 1-2 weeks and even though I have no idea what end game is going to be like in pve I have a feeling it won't keep me interested for very long especially that weapons aren't like in wow but are very similar in strength to reduce grinding for them. I think that most hardcores players will be mostly interested in World vs World pvp since I heard it will last for weeks each time and sounds very exciting!
Yep, for a week your server will be pitted against 2 other ones in a contest over 5+ areas in the Mists, and each week it'll be 2 different servers that you're in contest with.
But don't forget the arena PvP, it'll be engaging too especially with the rankings and such. Arena PvP could be pretty intense with the varied team setups that your team could encounter.
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."
I haven't read the whole thread (there's a lot to go through), so forgive me if some things are rehashed.
"Hardcore" means different things to different people.
The GW2 team has talked pvp a little bit: the WvWvW fighting is to be the "casual" form of pvp, where anyone can participate and make an impact. These Server battles are supposed to go on for at least a week, before everything resets.
The GvG battles are ALWAYS gonna be the hardcore in Guild Wars. The best teams will be on voice-comms, and know each other like their own asses. Charts will go on the website. Guilds will be known.
PvE in Guild Wars will appeal to a wide variety. I can't speak for the "hard-core" pve players....as I can't define it. Perma-death? 2 years to max-level? Necessary to group to level?
My guess is that PvE hardcore will NOT be catered to. They're trying to sell boxes, not get subs from the hardcore (ala Eve)
The underlined comment suggests that you haven't played GvG in GW. GW equalent for "summoning monsters" in the middle is the flag stand. It is about holding the middleground to get an advantage. You should know this. It might as well be a cooking pot and when it boils the defending team gets yummy soup. How can you be from a top guild if you haven't played GvG?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Indeed, if GW2 sets it's pvp up right (especially the WvWvW) then many 'hardcore' pvpers will get it, even if it's to play alongside their main mmos.
A certain poster in this thread seems to think that hardcore pvpers wont bother with this game, as someone who is only interested in pvp, who plays/has played the most pvp centric mmos and FPS games (and as someone who knows many other players with the same tastes) I can state catagorically that many are indeed looking at this game with interest.
It 'touch wood', should provide instant access arenas and large numbers in world pvp, something that sits nicely alongside the usual remit of FFA full loot hardcore games. It's the likes of Aion and other detritus that serious pvpers tend to lol at and avoid.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."