well, if a team 'organises' everyone enough to get a big enough zerg onto one objective then they're going to win that fight. It's just how it is. You can't expect some godlike buff for the 3 guys standing around defending. However they will lose a lot of ground zerging because every other objective will then be taken!
It was like this in alliance battles, you could never beat a zerg (well, without a good team dug in at an advantageous position, holding the bridge on the end luxon and kurzick maps with 4 rangers is particularly easy with good players) , but you can quite easily win the game if the enemy zergs.
Ok this is the last time I am going to say this since it is getting off topic. this isn't about a large group vs a small group. given 2 groups equaly the same size you will get focus fire without organization. you cannot expect each member to each target a different player, that would take more organization than the other scenario. this is where every player in the group is taking a gamble at the start of the fight between both large groups. People are going to be one shot left and right, as each group trades blows the death rate will slow down as each groups size shrinks the longer the battle goes on. what I was pointing out that this scenario is not fun pvp for the majority of either group since most of them in that group are going to be one shot until the groups gets small enough. This only occurs at really larget group sizes like 50 vs 50 I am not talking 10 vs 10. This is the big problem with large scale pvp, game mechanics start to break down at such large numbers. this can be seen in vanilla WOW with Southshore vs. Tarren Mill, it just created a mexican stand off scenario because no one wants to be one shot. You can even see this happening in WAR's open RvR.
Large scale pvp is more than just a hardware limitation, it is a game design nightmare to pull off. I still haven't seen it done well, even when the client runs smooth as butter.
Since we don’t charge a monthly fee players can go right ahead and play our game alongside any other game (online or offline) that they choose. They can even put our game down for a period of time and pick it back up later, perhaps when we release some expansion content or when we hold one of our holiday events.
We want our game to stand out as providing a finely crafted and polished play experience. We want it stand out among not only other MMO’s but among games in general.
I really liked those two statements. I stopped playing mmos ages ago because they are all really bad games when compared to other non mmos that are on offer. Their quality is just dreadful in comparison. The fact that ArenaNet are comparing themselves to ALL games instead of just competing with other mmos is a good sign that I might have a reason to play this one.
Their idea for how pvp will work in this game also looks very promising. Again I have no interest in the pitiful selection that is currently on offer in current mmos (no I dont want to play EVE or Darkfall lol) as none of them offer anything that is worth bothering with. I have always found the fact that mmos seem to avoid well designed player conflict in favour of having everyone play against the computer to be pretty daft......and very lazy. Its a complete waste of the internets potential in my opinion.
The absence of a rip-off monthly fee of course requires little comment. It automatically puts Guildwars 2 way ahead of its money grabbing competitors.
well, if a team 'organises' everyone enough to get a big enough zerg onto one objective then they're going to win that fight. It's just how it is. You can't expect some godlike buff for the 3 guys standing around defending. However they will lose a lot of ground zerging because every other objective will then be taken!
It was like this in alliance battles, you could never beat a zerg (well, without a good team dug in at an advantageous position, holding the bridge on the end luxon and kurzick maps with 4 rangers is particularly easy with good players) , but you can quite easily win the game if the enemy zergs.
Ok this is the last time I am going to say this since it is getting off topic. this isn't about a large group vs a small group. given 2 groups equaly the same size you will get focus fire without organization. you cannot expect each member to each target a different player, that would take more organization than the other scenario. this is where every player in the group is taking a gamble at the start of the fight between both large groups. People are going to be one shot left and right, as each group trades blows the death rate will slow down as each groups size shrinks the longer the battle goes on. what I was pointing out that this scenario is not fun pvp for the majority of either group since most of them in that group are going to be one shot until the groups gets small enough. This only occurs at really larget group sizes like 50 vs 50 I am not talking 10 vs 10. This is the big problem with large scale pvp, game mechanics start to break down at such large numbers. this can be seen in vanilla WOW with Southshore vs. Tarren Mill, it just created a mexican stand off scenario because no one wants to be one shot. You can even see this happening in WAR's open RvR.
Large scale pvp is more than just a hardware limitation, it is a game design nightmare to pull off. I still haven't seen it done well, even when the client runs smooth as butter.
Indeed, i considered the zerg v zerg situation to just be more of a stalemate situation anyway, i thought you were more about zerg vs. a few being unbalanced! I do think a good team (even if a zerg) will still win due to ressurections ect. additionally the mobility of gw2 characters will also definitely help good players avoid the initial blasts enough to let the rookies take the shots for them. Plus there's always defensive skills to hide behind! There's no reason why a good squad won't get some rangers and warriors out front to deflect the incoming attacks for the rest of the team while their allies rain down hell over their heads!
It'll definitely be interesting to see how things work out in full scale battles as you're describing, but from what i can tell about skills i reckon a good few players will know how to avoid taking too much damage in such situations. However, time will tell!
Plus there's always defensive skills to hide behind! There's no reason why a good squad won't get some rangers and warriors out front to deflect the incoming attacks for the rest of the team while their allies rain down hell over their heads!It'll definitely be interesting to see how things work out in full scale battles as you're describing, but from what i can tell about skills i reckon a good few players will know how to avoid taking too much damage in such situations. However, time will tell!
Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the Ranger skill Whirling Defense. That skill alone proves that there will always be a strategic solution to PvP encounters. Now I'm not saying that Whirling Defense would be the "be all end all" skill for any situation, just that ArenaNet is putting a lot of thought into how the game will be played and every skill will have it's uses.
Since we don’t charge a monthly fee players can go right ahead and play our game alongside any other game (online or offline) that they choose. They can even put our game down for a period of time and pick it back up later, perhaps when we release some expansion content or when we hold one of our holiday events.
We want our game to stand out as providing a finely crafted and polished play experience. We want it stand out among not only other MMO’s but among games in general.
I really liked those two statements. I stopped playing mmos ages ago because they are all really bad games when compared to other non mmos that are on offer. Their quality is just dreadful in comparison. The fact that ArenaNet are comparing themselves to ALL games instead of just competing with other mmos is a good sign that I might have a reason to play this one.
I agree, I like the approach they're taking to designing the game.
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."
Comments
Ok this is the last time I am going to say this since it is getting off topic. this isn't about a large group vs a small group. given 2 groups equaly the same size you will get focus fire without organization. you cannot expect each member to each target a different player, that would take more organization than the other scenario. this is where every player in the group is taking a gamble at the start of the fight between both large groups. People are going to be one shot left and right, as each group trades blows the death rate will slow down as each groups size shrinks the longer the battle goes on. what I was pointing out that this scenario is not fun pvp for the majority of either group since most of them in that group are going to be one shot until the groups gets small enough. This only occurs at really larget group sizes like 50 vs 50 I am not talking 10 vs 10. This is the big problem with large scale pvp, game mechanics start to break down at such large numbers. this can be seen in vanilla WOW with Southshore vs. Tarren Mill, it just created a mexican stand off scenario because no one wants to be one shot. You can even see this happening in WAR's open RvR.
Large scale pvp is more than just a hardware limitation, it is a game design nightmare to pull off. I still haven't seen it done well, even when the client runs smooth as butter.
Indeed, i considered the zerg v zerg situation to just be more of a stalemate situation anyway, i thought you were more about zerg vs. a few being unbalanced! I do think a good team (even if a zerg) will still win due to ressurections ect. additionally the mobility of gw2 characters will also definitely help good players avoid the initial blasts enough to let the rookies take the shots for them. Plus there's always defensive skills to hide behind! There's no reason why a good squad won't get some rangers and warriors out front to deflect the incoming attacks for the rest of the team while their allies rain down hell over their heads!
It'll definitely be interesting to see how things work out in full scale battles as you're describing, but from what i can tell about skills i reckon a good few players will know how to avoid taking too much damage in such situations. However, time will tell!
Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the Ranger skill Whirling Defense. That skill alone proves that there will always be a strategic solution to PvP encounters. Now I'm not saying that Whirling Defense would be the "be all end all" skill for any situation, just that ArenaNet is putting a lot of thought into how the game will be played and every skill will have it's uses.
I agree, I like the approach they're taking to designing the game.
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."