You guys are looking at this wrong. The Dynamic Events are NOT going to support grouping. GW2 is ANTI-GROUP. That's the whole point. The only time you'll ever need a group for anything is for those dungeons, which are supposed to be particularly challenging as compared to the rest of the game.
It's not about grouping in GW2, it's about ~community~. Those Events aren't going to promote grouping because rewards are split evenly between all players, because you don't need to be in the group to heal/ressurect someone, because you don't need to be in a group to participate. This is a ~good~ thing. It means you can help purely because you want to, and know you'lll still get a reward. There's nothing stopping you from helping that small group of adventurers during a dynamic event! You could be the 6th person coming in and you're still just as helpful, and just as rewarded, as that group of 5 people (which is the max allowed in a group). In any other game, you could have to sit on the sidelines until more people showed up because their group was full, and hope that the next people that come along have room for you. I don't understand how people consider that the fun way. *shrug*
You're talking about WAR's public event system, right?
GW2 is about bringing people together and getting rid of that retarded dynamic of static groups. It's meant to eliminate cliques and remove the concern over whether or not you get a group, while still promoting working together towards a common goal. That, to me, is a step forward.
You're talking about WAR's public event system, right? It was a huge step forward in 2008 and no one plays it. Anyway, the dynamic isn't "retarded" - what if you want to be in a group with your friends, and don't want to have to deal with all the area spam that you're bound to get from a FTP MMO? The dynamic may not be needed in a game where every class can do everything, but that doesn't mean it's an inherently flawed dynamic.
Nice way to glaze over the meaning of everything I said. No, I'm not talking about WAR's Events, and the reason no one plays war is not its events, it's because the game is crap. Sorry, but its true. I notice a lot of WAR fans trying to compare their game with others to remind people the game even exists, but if people wanted to play your game, no reminder would be necessary. Just saying.
As for the dynamic being retarded, that's exactly what it is. Not because it exists, but because of what it promotes. There's nothing stopping you from grouping with your friends, in fact that's a great thing, but how often have you been forced between a group with your friends and a group with your guild? How often did your friends shoot ahead of you in levels or gear and now you were out of the group? How often did you NEED to be part of a group just to participate in a game? How often did you miss out on those events because there was no room for you in a group, or no one knew you from Adam and would rather have a friend in the group than you, or worse, would rather have 4 people they know in a group over 4 people they know +1 stranger. These are all things grouping promotes, over the one GOOD thing it promotes, which is working together. Now, you can work together, and you can group, but people outside of your group can work with you and help you, and you can help them. Are we actually arguing the benefits of this? Like, really?
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
I'm still skeptical on the DE bringing people together.
Granted they might fight together, but if my years of MMO tell me anything this is generally how i feel it will go
You are warned of a problem in town
You run to the town and see it under attack.
You see 3 other people fightin in that town
You kill the monster, and continue until you complete the event.
Then everyone (if your lucky) thanks each other for the help, then run their seperate ways.
Not much of a group effort and certainly no more interaction then in normal circumstances. all it does is remove the group aspect. Which just makes it feel more solo/single player then a group would.
DE in my opinion do not support group play and will most likely have little interaction with each other. Least thats what i've seen from my experiences.
It's always been if i can solo it, i will. if i don't have to talk to others, i won't. This has been the case in nearly every mmo i've seen and i'm pretty sure it will be the same thing here. The instance dungeons will promote group play, which is nice but I don't see the DE promoting any sort of group play. Just everyone doing their thing to win the event.
I think you're pretty accurate with this one, but on the other hand if you've ever played Tabula Rasa, when Bane tried to capture control point, it was one hell of an awesome fight
Players just stood together back to back trying to kill more than the others..yeah sure you didn't interact much but noone really cared, you just had a great time (which very contradicts most MMOs where the player to your left only means he'll kill steal your mobs and pick up your nodes)
Anyway I read somewhere in some magazine(too tired to look it up, I've got examines ahead) that "defending" the DEs lead to actually creating a group and continuing on together, which sounds really adventurous and immersive
Non HC Roleplayers will surely enjoy it:)
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them
GW1 brought us the Henchmen precisely so we could solo everything without the need for a group (except PvP ofc, this is obviously for groups). Why the hell would GW 2 be so different that it would bring the necessity to group?
Uh, they're removing henchman for GW2 and there will be 5 man dungeons and raids. You will have the need to group if you want to complete this content. I am sure this content will not be necessary to hit lvl cap, but then you're missing out on content which is another motivator to group.
thought they were gonna have NPC characters for the story elements at least help out in dungeons?
Just NPCs that can not be controlled by players and are not henchmen.
I'm still skeptical on the DE bringing people together.
Granted they might fight together, but if my years of MMO tell me anything this is generally how i feel it will go
You are warned of a problem in town
You run to the town and see it under attack.
You see 3 other people fightin in that town
You kill the monster, and continue until you complete the event.
Then everyone (if your lucky) thanks each other for the help, then run their seperate ways.
Not much of a group effort and certainly no more interaction then in normal circumstances. all it does is remove the group aspect. Which just makes it feel more solo/single player then a group would.
DE in my opinion do not support group play and will most likely have little interaction with each other. Least thats what i've seen from my experiences.
It's always been if i can solo it, i will. if i don't have to talk to others, i won't. This has been the case in nearly every mmo i've seen and i'm pretty sure it will be the same thing here. The instance dungeons will promote group play, which is nice but I don't see the DE promoting any sort of group play. Just everyone doing their thing to win the event.
I think you're pretty accurate with this one, but on the other hand if you've ever played Tabula Rasa, when Bane tried to capture control point, it was one hell of an awesome fight
Players just stood together back to back trying to kill more than the others..yeah sure you didn't interact much but noone really cared, you just had a great time (which very contradicts most MMOs where the player to your left only means he'll kill steal your mobs and pick up your nodes)
Anyway I read somewhere in some magazine(too tired to look it up, I've got examines ahead) that "defending" the DEs lead to actually creating a group and continuing on together, which sounds really adventurous and immersive
GW1 brought us the Henchmen precisely so we could solo everything without the need for a group (except PvP ofc, this is obviously for groups). Why the hell would GW 2 be so different that it would bring the necessity to group?
Uh, they're removing henchman for GW2 and there will be 5 man dungeons and raids. You will have the need to group if you want to complete this content. I am sure this content will not be necessary to hit lvl cap, but then you're missing out on content which is another motivator to group.
thought they were gonna have NPC characters for the story elements at least help out in dungeons?
Just NPCs that can not be controlled by players and are not henchmen.
Based on what they have said they appear to be more story elements than actual party members. Even your first time through the dungeon was mentioned as "story-mode" by the developers.
GW1 brought us the Henchmen precisely so we could solo everything without the need for a group (except PvP ofc, this is obviously for groups). Why the hell would GW 2 be so different that it would bring the necessity to group?
Uh, they're removing henchman for GW2 and there will be 5 man dungeons and raids. You will have the need to group if you want to complete this content. I am sure this content will not be necessary to hit lvl cap, but then you're missing out on content which is another motivator to group.
Well, WoW has loads of dungeons adn raids and while ppl do them I dont think this brings some need to group, in fact some ppl only group for dungeons and act like they are alone since theres rarely any interest in communicate except for the random insult.
To promote grouping is to make the open world tuned for groups and to provide grouping and social activities. Let's wait to see what they are bringing
Looking at WoW - people have to group in order to do the dungeon right? Unless they vastly out level it or something? So people HAVE to form a group in order to do the content. Otherwise, they cannot complete it. That's encouraging grouping. They might not act like they are in a group, but regardless of that they are. What you have suggested also promotes grouping but via another means. Anet has suggested that their game will feature elements of both.
GW1 brought us the Henchmen precisely so we could solo everything without the need for a group (except PvP ofc, this is obviously for groups). Why the hell would GW 2 be so different that it would bring the necessity to group?
Uh, they're removing henchman for GW2 and there will be 5 man dungeons and raids. You will have the need to group if you want to complete this content. I am sure this content will not be necessary to hit lvl cap, but then you're missing out on content which is another motivator to group.
thought they were gonna have NPC characters for the story elements at least help out in dungeons?
Just NPCs that can not be controlled by players and are not henchmen.
Based on what they have said they appear to be more story elements than actual party members. Even your first time through the dungeon was mentioned as "story-mode" by the developers.
Yea that's pretty much what I was saying, they are just like the points in time where Kormir joins your list of NPC party members in GW1 just for that point in the story.
GW1 brought us the Henchmen precisely so we could solo everything without the need for a group (except PvP ofc, this is obviously for groups). Why the hell would GW 2 be so different that it would bring the necessity to group?
Uh, they're removing henchman for GW2 and there will be 5 man dungeons and raids. You will have the need to group if you want to complete this content. I am sure this content will not be necessary to hit lvl cap, but then you're missing out on content which is another motivator to group.
thought they were gonna have NPC characters for the story elements at least help out in dungeons?
Just NPCs that can not be controlled by players and are not henchmen.
Based on what they have said they appear to be more story elements than actual party members. Even your first time through the dungeon was mentioned as "story-mode" by the developers.
Yea that's pretty much what I was saying, they are just like the points in time where Kormir joins your list of NPC party members in GW1 just for that point in the story.
We don't know if they would actually be NPC party members or not. They might just show up for cut scenes to move the story forward and assist your party that way and not actually assist your party as a party member in the in-game fights themselves.
GW1 brought us the Henchmen precisely so we could solo everything without the need for a group (except PvP ofc, this is obviously for groups). Why the hell would GW 2 be so different that it would bring the necessity to group?
Uh, they're removing henchman for GW2 and there will be 5 man dungeons and raids. You will have the need to group if you want to complete this content. I am sure this content will not be necessary to hit lvl cap, but then you're missing out on content which is another motivator to group.
Well, WoW has loads of dungeons adn raids and while ppl do them I dont think this brings some need to group, in fact some ppl only group for dungeons and act like they are alone since theres rarely any interest in communicate except for the random insult.
To promote grouping is to make the open world tuned for groups and to provide grouping and social activities. Let's wait to see what they are bringing
People have to group in order to do the dungeon right? Unless they vastly out level it or something? So people HAVE to form a group in order to do the content. Otherwise, they cannot complete it. That's encouraging grouping. They might not act like they are in a group, but regardless of that they are. What you have suggested also promotes grouping but via another means. Anet has suggested that their game will feature elements of both.
You can never really out-level content because when you surpass a certain level threshold, the game sidekicks you down to meet that threshold so that you don't one-shot everything in sight, keeping things challenging and fun for everyone. This also means that when you're done with your character leveling, the whole game is your endgame and you can go to any content level and feel like you're powerful but not indestructible.
GW1 brought us the Henchmen precisely so we could solo everything without the need for a group (except PvP ofc, this is obviously for groups). Why the hell would GW 2 be so different that it would bring the necessity to group?
Uh, they're removing henchman for GW2 and there will be 5 man dungeons and raids. You will have the need to group if you want to complete this content. I am sure this content will not be necessary to hit lvl cap, but then you're missing out on content which is another motivator to group.
Well, WoW has loads of dungeons adn raids and while ppl do them I dont think this brings some need to group, in fact some ppl only group for dungeons and act like they are alone since theres rarely any interest in communicate except for the random insult.
To promote grouping is to make the open world tuned for groups and to provide grouping and social activities. Let's wait to see what they are bringing
People have to group in order to do the dungeon right? Unless they vastly out level it or something? So people HAVE to form a group in order to do the content. Otherwise, they cannot complete it. That's encouraging grouping. They might not act like they are in a group, but regardless of that they are. What you have suggested also promotes grouping but via another means. Anet has suggested that their game will feature elements of both.
You can never really out-level content because when you surpass a certain level threshold, the game sidekicks you down to meet that threshold so that you don't one-shot everything in site keeping things challenging and fun for everyone. This also means that when you're done with your character leveling, the whole game is your endgame and you can go to any content level and feel like you're powerful but not indestructible.
I was responding to his post about WoW not referring to GW2 there. I'll go back and edit.
You guys are looking at this wrong. The Dynamic Events are NOT going to support grouping. GW2 is ANTI-GROUP. That's the whole point. The only time you'll ever need a group for anything is for those dungeons, which are supposed to be particularly challenging as compared to the rest of the game.
It's not about grouping in GW2, it's about ~community~. Those Events aren't going to promote grouping because rewards are split evenly between all players, because you don't need to be in the group to heal/ressurect someone, because you don't need to be in a group to participate. This is a ~good~ thing. It means you can help purely because you want to, and know you'lll still get a reward. There's nothing stopping you from helping that small group of adventurers during a dynamic event! You could be the 6th person coming in and you're still just as helpful, and just as rewarded, as that group of 5 people (which is the max allowed in a group). In any other game, you could have to sit on the sidelines until more people showed up because their group was full, and hope that the next people that come along have room for you. I don't understand how people consider that the fun way. *shrug*
You're talking about WAR's public event system, right?
GW2 is about bringing people together and getting rid of that retarded dynamic of static groups. It's meant to eliminate cliques and remove the concern over whether or not you get a group, while still promoting working together towards a common goal. That, to me, is a step forward.
You're talking about WAR's public event system, right? It was a huge step forward in 2008 and no one plays it. Anyway, the dynamic isn't "retarded" - what if you want to be in a group with your friends, and don't want to have to deal with all the area spam that you're bound to get from a FTP MMO? The dynamic may not be needed in a game where every class can do everything, but that doesn't mean it's an inherently flawed dynamic.
People loved the Public Quests in that game, as did I. What ruined the game was the terrible implementation of PvP, class balance and lack of a third and balancing faction. Then to make it worse, they made PvE even less rewarding in order to try and force people into the PvP lakes, that's when everyone stopped bothering with public quests for the most part as the XP and loot were crappy in comparison.
Like others have said outside of instances (which require groups) the dynamic events system likely will not encourage grouping. The entire point of the system is to be able to essentially play as though you're in a group with everyone around you without ever actually forming a group. In a sense everyone out in the world is in one huge group in terms of rewards and player interaction. There are no more arbitrary differentiations between players in and out of your group.
Personally this has lead me to rethink my desire for grouping... previously I've been hoping to find another game that forces grouping compared to games like WoW where you essentially play alone most of the time. Now I'm beginning to wonder if all I've actually wanted is positive, cooperative interaction with other players. There is something incredibly fun about fighting alongside complete strangers, knowing that it's in both of your best interests to help each other even if you don't say a word.
Like others have said outside of instances (which require groups) the dynamic events system likely will not encourage grouping. The entire point of the system is to be able to essentially play as though you're in a group with everyone around you without ever actually forming a group. In a sense everyone out in the world is in one huge group in terms of rewards and player interaction. There are no more arbitrary differentiations between players in and out of your group.
Personally this has lead me to rethink my desire for grouping... previously I've been hoping to find another game that forces grouping compared to games like WoW where you essentially play alone most of the time. Now I'm beginning to wonder if all I've actually wanted is positive, cooperative interaction with other players. There is something incredibly fun about fighting alongside complete strangers, knowing that it's in both of your best interests to help each other even if you don't say a word.
You know, now that i sit back and actually think about it like this.. You are absolutely correct... Actual "formed" groups (tank, healer, dps etc.) is probably a dying artform.. "Public" style events are probably better to take the place of groups..
But with grouping/solo the way it is in MMO's, where does that leave Guilds and raid content? Should they also do away with that?
Like others have said outside of instances (which require groups) the dynamic events system likely will not encourage grouping. The entire point of the system is to be able to essentially play as though you're in a group with everyone around you without ever actually forming a group. In a sense everyone out in the world is in one huge group in terms of rewards and player interaction. There are no more arbitrary differentiations between players in and out of your group.
Personally this has lead me to rethink my desire for grouping... previously I've been hoping to find another game that forces grouping compared to games like WoW where you essentially play alone most of the time. Now I'm beginning to wonder if all I've actually wanted is positive, cooperative interaction with other players. There is something incredibly fun about fighting alongside complete strangers, knowing that it's in both of your best interests to help each other even if you don't say a word.
You know, now that i sit back and actually think about it like this.. You are absolutely correct... Actual "formed" groups (tank, healer, dps etc.) is probably a dying artform.. "Public" style events are probably better to take the place of groups..
But with grouping/solo the way it is in MMO's, where does that leave Guilds and raid content? Should they also do away with that?
I don't know about doing away with it, but there's certainly room for change depending on how things turn out. Using WoW as an easy example look at Vault of Archavon- it certainly doesn't take a guild to clear just teamwork and paying attention. In fact I remember quite a few times there'd be guild raids where the main guild couldn't field enough people and the roster would be filled via friend's lists or guild alliances. Even in EQ1 we had a couple of other guilds we would regularly cooperate and team up with to schedule raids. It seems like this type of cooperation only really falters with poor communities or players that are all about getting loot. I can't say I know exactly how important the role of loot will be in GW2 but if it isn't a very emphasized or important (i.e. main form of progression) then perhaps there won't be a playerbase full of loot whores and people can just get together for the common goal of clearing content rather than the reward of oooooh shinies at the end.
As far as the need for guilds, I think maybe the necessity of one might go away, but again in some games with guilds that have become so huge that players hardly know each other it reduces the guild to just another chat channel and maybe some additional storage space.
Like others have said outside of instances (which require groups) the dynamic events system likely will not encourage grouping. The entire point of the system is to be able to essentially play as though you're in a group with everyone around you without ever actually forming a group. In a sense everyone out in the world is in one huge group in terms of rewards and player interaction. There are no more arbitrary differentiations between players in and out of your group.
Personally this has lead me to rethink my desire for grouping... previously I've been hoping to find another game that forces grouping compared to games like WoW where you essentially play alone most of the time. Now I'm beginning to wonder if all I've actually wanted is positive, cooperative interaction with other players. There is something incredibly fun about fighting alongside complete strangers, knowing that it's in both of your best interests to help each other even if you don't say a word.
You know, now that i sit back and actually think about it like this.. You are absolutely correct... Actual "formed" groups (tank, healer, dps etc.) is probably a dying artform.. "Public" style events are probably better to take the place of groups..
But with grouping/solo the way it is in MMO's, where does that leave Guilds and raid content? Should they also do away with that?
I don't know about doing away with it, but there's certainly room for change depending on how things turn out. Using WoW as an easy example look at Vault of Archavon- it certainly doesn't take a guild to clear just teamwork and paying attention. In fact I remember quite a few times there'd be guild raids where the main guild couldn't field enough people and the roster would be filled via friend's lists or guild alliances. Even in EQ1 we had a couple of other guilds we would regularly cooperate and team up with to schedule raids. It seems like this type of cooperation only really falters with poor communities or players that are all about getting loot. I can't say I know exactly how important the role of loot will be in GW2 but if it isn't a very emphasized or important (i.e. main form of progression) then perhaps there won't be a playerbase full of loot whores and people can just get together for the common goal of clearing content rather than the reward of oooooh shinies at the end.
As far as the need for guilds, I think maybe the necessity of one might go away, but again in some games with guilds that have become so huge that players hardly know each other it reduces the guild to just another chat channel and maybe some additional storage space.
The role of loot is downplayed in GW2 just like it was in GW1. Most of the stuff that deals with gear is more aesthetic than statistic. Everyone who completes a dungeon gets a token so that they can pick whichever prize from that dungeon they want much like when you finish a campaign in GW1 and get a token so that you can pick any weapon of your choice although you can only do this once in GW1 but in GW2, you can do the dungeon multiple times and get enough tokens to get all pieces of the gear you want.
the game is solo friendly and it doesnt force you to group ANET is promoting grouping in a more natural way you see people near you and they join in on a dynamic quest naturally without having to stand around shouting LFG this is a good thing cuz you wont encounter a group of people that'll say, "Nah , we're full and you cant join us for this quest" "We already got a tank, we dont need you" "We need a healer, respec or get lost!" "You're too low level to join up on this quest" "You're too high level and will lower the XP for this quest"
ANET hopes that when people naturally come together doing a dynamic quest, after successfully doing it, they will stick together for the next leg of the DQ but even if 1 bails out and decide to do something else, the current group wont be disabled that is hard to do in current MMOs with its traditional grouping
The role of loot is downplayed in GW2 just like it was in GW1. Most of the stuff that deals with gear is more aesthetic than statistic. Everyone who completes a dungeon gets a token so that they can pick whichever prize from that dungeon they want much like when you finish a campaign in GW1 and get a token so that you can pick any weapon of your choice although you can only do this once in GW1 but in GW2, you can do the dungeon multiple times and get enough tokens to get all pieces of the gear you want.
Thanks for the info, I'd hoped that it would be similar to GW1 in this aspect but haven't done the research and would hate to assume. It sounds like a different way of implementing a function like the LFG tool in WoW, and a better thought out one since it doesn't just pluck anonymous players from servers you're not even on. Less reliance/emphasis on loot and more thought towards a strong community might make this game appeal to both the grouping and solo crowd.
However, even if done well will it be enough to break the forced-grouping crowd to open their minds to this new dynamic as well as get those rabid solo'ers (the you-can't-make-me-play-with-anyone-in-a-MMO types) to be willing to socialize?
The role of loot is downplayed in GW2 just like it was in GW1. Most of the stuff that deals with gear is more aesthetic than statistic. Everyone who completes a dungeon gets a token so that they can pick whichever prize from that dungeon they want much like when you finish a campaign in GW1 and get a token so that you can pick any weapon of your choice although you can only do this once in GW1 but in GW2, you can do the dungeon multiple times and get enough tokens to get all pieces of the gear you want.
Thanks for the info, I'd hoped that it would be similar to GW1 in this aspect but haven't done the research and would hate to assume. It sounds like a different way of implementing a function like the LFG tool in WoW, and a better thought out one since it doesn't just pluck anonymous players from servers you're not even on. Less reliance/emphasis on loot and more thought towards a strong community might make this game appeal to both the grouping and solo crowd.
However, even if done well will it be enough to break the forced-grouping crowd to open their minds to this new dynamic as well as get those rabid solo'ers (the you-can't-make-me-play-with-anyone-in-a-MMO types) to be willing to socialize?
Grouping will be needed in Guildwars 2 if the AI is compicated enuff.
If you don't group for encounters you end up with big zerg-fests. Zerg-fests are chaotic and not fun after a short while.
We have already seen there will be invasions of NPCs in locations that will be action packed and you will need to defend those locations. The real question is...are players that have been used to playing with npc groups in the past going to be ok with grouping with actual players?
Grouping will be needed in Guildwars 2 if the AI is compicated enuff.
If you don't group for encounters you end up with big zerg-fests. Zerg-fests are chaotic and not fun after a short while.
We have already seen there will be invasions of NPCs in locations that will be action packed and you will need to defend those locations. The real question is...are players that have been used to playing with npc groups in the past going to be ok with grouping with actual players?
Time will tell.....
I think most GW players have grouped with actual players at times, some always do it others rarely but when you get to the really hard content it is nice to have real players.
Besides, otherwise it is either time to learn or you can spend your time in the personal storyline instead.
But it is working together people need to learn, if they are grouped or not is not an issue here since you can rez and heal players that aren't grouped with you. Good players do their part without anyone having to tell them anything.
It is nice to be able to flag targets and so on and it is great when you play together with people you have come to know, you know what they do and they know you.
"If you know yourself and the enemy you need not to fear a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy you will lose a battle for every you win. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself you are screwed"
Grouping will be needed in Guildwars 2 if the AI is compicated enuff.
If you don't group for encounters you end up with big zerg-fests. Zerg-fests are chaotic and not fun after a short while.
We have already seen there will be invasions of NPCs in locations that will be action packed and you will need to defend those locations. The real question is...are players that have been used to playing with npc groups in the past going to be ok with grouping with actual players?
Time will tell.....
The sorts of activities required in the open world will not require grouping as in having defined healer/tank/dps/cc/etc. roles that you need Vent to sort out; rather they will be split into tasks that require different people to do different things. This will not demand the kind of tight coordination of a formed group, neither will it be a zerg, because there won't only be one job to fulfill (kill the boss). Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could DPS the Shatterer, OR fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR rescue allies from the crystals, OR protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery, etc.
This is what the open world is made for. The tight groups have their dungeons.
Grouping will be needed in Guildwars 2 if the AI is compicated enuff.
If you don't group for encounters you end up with big zerg-fests. Zerg-fests are chaotic and not fun after a short while.
We have already seen there will be invasions of NPCs in locations that will be action packed and you will need to defend those locations. The real question is...are players that have been used to playing with npc groups in the past going to be ok with grouping with actual players?
Time will tell.....
The sorts of activities required in the open world will not require grouping as in having defined healer/tank/dps/cc/etc. roles that you need Vent to sort out; rather they will be split into tasks that require different people to do different things. This will not demand the kind of tight coordination of a formed group, neither will it be a zerg, because there won't only be one job to fulfill (kill the boss). Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could DPS the Shatterer, OR fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR rescue allies from the crystals, OR protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery, etc.
This is what the open world is made for. The tight groups have their dungeons.
You know...when you break it down like that. I sounds exactly like every other MMO out there. The only thing missing is the word Quest.
Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could accept quest to DPS the Shatterer, OR accept the quest to fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR accept the quest to rescue allies from the crystals, OR accept the quest to protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery.
The sorts of activities required in the open world will not require grouping as in having defined healer/tank/dps/cc/etc. roles that you need Vent to sort out; rather they will be split into tasks that require different people to do different things. This will not demand the kind of tight coordination of a formed group, neither will it be a zerg, because there won't only be one job to fulfill (kill the boss). Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could DPS the Shatterer, OR fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR rescue allies from the crystals, OR protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery, etc.
This is what the open world is made for. The tight groups have their dungeons.
I think that because you lack specific roles you will have to coordinate better than in a holy triad game, you will have to keep an eye on the entire group, rez people, use your healing, buff or similar. and you will have to coordinate attacks against certain opponents, keep adds away, help the cloth users from being killed by melee mobs and so on.
Coordination in large fights will be important and I think certain groups will do certain tasks.
Grouping will be needed in Guildwars 2 if the AI is compicated enuff.
If you don't group for encounters you end up with big zerg-fests. Zerg-fests are chaotic and not fun after a short while.
We have already seen there will be invasions of NPCs in locations that will be action packed and you will need to defend those locations. The real question is...are players that have been used to playing with npc groups in the past going to be ok with grouping with actual players?
Time will tell.....
The sorts of activities required in the open world will not require grouping as in having defined healer/tank/dps/cc/etc. roles that you need Vent to sort out; rather they will be split into tasks that require different people to do different things. This will not demand the kind of tight coordination of a formed group, neither will it be a zerg, because there won't only be one job to fulfill (kill the boss). Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could DPS the Shatterer, OR fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR rescue allies from the crystals, OR protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery, etc.
This is what the open world is made for. The tight groups have their dungeons.
You know...when you break it down like that. I sounds exactly like every other MMO out there. The only thing missing is the word Quest.
Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could accept quest to DPS the Shatterer, OR accept the quest to fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR accept the quest to rescue allies from the crystals, OR accept the quest to protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery.
Since Dyamic Events ARE the replacement for quests in the game, and ArenaNet has in no way insinuated that they were not, and that, in fact, you have identified the differentiation between DEs and quests as being the ability for ANYONE to participate in ANY aspect without having to "Accept the quest", as well as the fact that the DE will proceed according to the actions of those in the area.... okay?
Do you think observing these similarities is somehow a slur? Yes, DEs are quests you don't have to accept.
It's more organic and natural then just accepting the quest. The event occurs and you have the choice of participating or not. Sometimes the event is such that you need to trigger it, other times it is sort of a timed event and you'll have to be there at that time or you will miss it.
What is different as well is that the big events, such as the Shatterer, will scale to how many people are there. If you want to compare them to PQs in Warhammer go ahead but it has several improvements upon them. The biggest improvement is the scalability of the event. So whether you are solo or there are 50 players there the event will scale accordingly. PQs in War were static and that proved to be one of its downfall.
Comments
Nice way to glaze over the meaning of everything I said. No, I'm not talking about WAR's Events, and the reason no one plays war is not its events, it's because the game is crap. Sorry, but its true. I notice a lot of WAR fans trying to compare their game with others to remind people the game even exists, but if people wanted to play your game, no reminder would be necessary. Just saying.
As for the dynamic being retarded, that's exactly what it is. Not because it exists, but because of what it promotes. There's nothing stopping you from grouping with your friends, in fact that's a great thing, but how often have you been forced between a group with your friends and a group with your guild? How often did your friends shoot ahead of you in levels or gear and now you were out of the group? How often did you NEED to be part of a group just to participate in a game? How often did you miss out on those events because there was no room for you in a group, or no one knew you from Adam and would rather have a friend in the group than you, or worse, would rather have 4 people they know in a group over 4 people they know +1 stranger. These are all things grouping promotes, over the one GOOD thing it promotes, which is working together. Now, you can work together, and you can group, but people outside of your group can work with you and help you, and you can help them. Are we actually arguing the benefits of this? Like, really?
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
I think you're pretty accurate with this one, but on the other hand if you've ever played Tabula Rasa, when Bane tried to capture control point, it was one hell of an awesome fight
Players just stood together back to back trying to kill more than the others..yeah sure you didn't interact much but noone really cared, you just had a great time (which very contradicts most MMOs where the player to your left only means he'll kill steal your mobs and pick up your nodes)
Anyway I read somewhere in some magazine(too tired to look it up, I've got examines ahead) that "defending" the DEs lead to actually creating a group and continuing on together, which sounds really adventurous and immersive
Non HC Roleplayers will surely enjoy it:)
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them
Just NPCs that can not be controlled by players and are not henchmen.
This is not a game.
Yea ...TR was fun...and Hard..
This is not a game.
Based on what they have said they appear to be more story elements than actual party members. Even your first time through the dungeon was mentioned as "story-mode" by the developers.
Steam: Neph
Looking at WoW - people have to group in order to do the dungeon right? Unless they vastly out level it or something? So people HAVE to form a group in order to do the content. Otherwise, they cannot complete it. That's encouraging grouping. They might not act like they are in a group, but regardless of that they are. What you have suggested also promotes grouping but via another means. Anet has suggested that their game will feature elements of both.
Steam: Neph
Yea that's pretty much what I was saying, they are just like the points in time where Kormir joins your list of NPC party members in GW1 just for that point in the story.
This is not a game.
We don't know if they would actually be NPC party members or not. They might just show up for cut scenes to move the story forward and assist your party that way and not actually assist your party as a party member in the in-game fights themselves.
Steam: Neph
You can never really out-level content because when you surpass a certain level threshold, the game sidekicks you down to meet that threshold so that you don't one-shot everything in sight, keeping things challenging and fun for everyone. This also means that when you're done with your character leveling, the whole game is your endgame and you can go to any content level and feel like you're powerful but not indestructible.
This is not a game.
I was responding to his post about WoW not referring to GW2 there. I'll go back and edit.
Steam: Neph
People loved the Public Quests in that game, as did I. What ruined the game was the terrible implementation of PvP, class balance and lack of a third and balancing faction. Then to make it worse, they made PvE even less rewarding in order to try and force people into the PvP lakes, that's when everyone stopped bothering with public quests for the most part as the XP and loot were crappy in comparison.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Like others have said outside of instances (which require groups) the dynamic events system likely will not encourage grouping. The entire point of the system is to be able to essentially play as though you're in a group with everyone around you without ever actually forming a group. In a sense everyone out in the world is in one huge group in terms of rewards and player interaction. There are no more arbitrary differentiations between players in and out of your group.
Personally this has lead me to rethink my desire for grouping... previously I've been hoping to find another game that forces grouping compared to games like WoW where you essentially play alone most of the time. Now I'm beginning to wonder if all I've actually wanted is positive, cooperative interaction with other players. There is something incredibly fun about fighting alongside complete strangers, knowing that it's in both of your best interests to help each other even if you don't say a word.
You know, now that i sit back and actually think about it like this.. You are absolutely correct... Actual "formed" groups (tank, healer, dps etc.) is probably a dying artform.. "Public" style events are probably better to take the place of groups..
But with grouping/solo the way it is in MMO's, where does that leave Guilds and raid content? Should they also do away with that?
I don't know about doing away with it, but there's certainly room for change depending on how things turn out. Using WoW as an easy example look at Vault of Archavon- it certainly doesn't take a guild to clear just teamwork and paying attention. In fact I remember quite a few times there'd be guild raids where the main guild couldn't field enough people and the roster would be filled via friend's lists or guild alliances. Even in EQ1 we had a couple of other guilds we would regularly cooperate and team up with to schedule raids. It seems like this type of cooperation only really falters with poor communities or players that are all about getting loot. I can't say I know exactly how important the role of loot will be in GW2 but if it isn't a very emphasized or important (i.e. main form of progression) then perhaps there won't be a playerbase full of loot whores and people can just get together for the common goal of clearing content rather than the reward of oooooh shinies at the end.
As far as the need for guilds, I think maybe the necessity of one might go away, but again in some games with guilds that have become so huge that players hardly know each other it reduces the guild to just another chat channel and maybe some additional storage space.
The role of loot is downplayed in GW2 just like it was in GW1. Most of the stuff that deals with gear is more aesthetic than statistic. Everyone who completes a dungeon gets a token so that they can pick whichever prize from that dungeon they want much like when you finish a campaign in GW1 and get a token so that you can pick any weapon of your choice although you can only do this once in GW1 but in GW2, you can do the dungeon multiple times and get enough tokens to get all pieces of the gear you want.
This is not a game.
the game is solo friendly and it doesnt force you to group
ANET is promoting grouping in a more natural way
you see people near you and they join in on a dynamic quest naturally without having to stand around shouting LFG
this is a good thing cuz you wont encounter a group of people that'll say,
"Nah , we're full and you cant join us for this quest"
"We already got a tank, we dont need you"
"We need a healer, respec or get lost!"
"You're too low level to join up on this quest"
"You're too high level and will lower the XP for this quest"
ANET hopes that when people naturally come together doing a dynamic quest, after successfully doing it, they will stick together for the next leg of the DQ
but even if 1 bails out and decide to do something else, the current group wont be disabled
that is hard to do in current MMOs with its traditional grouping
Have fun storming the castle! - Miracle Max
Thanks for the info, I'd hoped that it would be similar to GW1 in this aspect but haven't done the research and would hate to assume. It sounds like a different way of implementing a function like the LFG tool in WoW, and a better thought out one since it doesn't just pluck anonymous players from servers you're not even on. Less reliance/emphasis on loot and more thought towards a strong community might make this game appeal to both the grouping and solo crowd.
However, even if done well will it be enough to break the forced-grouping crowd to open their minds to this new dynamic as well as get those rabid solo'ers (the you-can't-make-me-play-with-anyone-in-a-MMO types) to be willing to socialize?
Possibly.
This is not a game.
Grouping will be needed in Guildwars 2 if the AI is compicated enuff.
If you don't group for encounters you end up with big zerg-fests. Zerg-fests are chaotic and not fun after a short while.
We have already seen there will be invasions of NPCs in locations that will be action packed and you will need to defend those locations. The real question is...are players that have been used to playing with npc groups in the past going to be ok with grouping with actual players?
Time will tell.....
I think most GW players have grouped with actual players at times, some always do it others rarely but when you get to the really hard content it is nice to have real players.
Besides, otherwise it is either time to learn or you can spend your time in the personal storyline instead.
But it is working together people need to learn, if they are grouped or not is not an issue here since you can rez and heal players that aren't grouped with you. Good players do their part without anyone having to tell them anything.
It is nice to be able to flag targets and so on and it is great when you play together with people you have come to know, you know what they do and they know you.
"If you know yourself and the enemy you need not to fear a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy you will lose a battle for every you win. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself you are screwed"
The sorts of activities required in the open world will not require grouping as in having defined healer/tank/dps/cc/etc. roles that you need Vent to sort out; rather they will be split into tasks that require different people to do different things. This will not demand the kind of tight coordination of a formed group, neither will it be a zerg, because there won't only be one job to fulfill (kill the boss). Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could DPS the Shatterer, OR fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR rescue allies from the crystals, OR protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery, etc.
This is what the open world is made for. The tight groups have their dungeons.
You know...when you break it down like that. I sounds exactly like every other MMO out there. The only thing missing is the word Quest.
Even within the Shatterer fight (which was simplified for demo purposes), people could accept quest to DPS the Shatterer, OR accept the quest to fight his henchmen who were destroying the artillery, OR accept the quest to rescue allies from the crystals, OR accept the quest to protect the caravans sent to repair the artillery.
I think that because you lack specific roles you will have to coordinate better than in a holy triad game, you will have to keep an eye on the entire group, rez people, use your healing, buff or similar. and you will have to coordinate attacks against certain opponents, keep adds away, help the cloth users from being killed by melee mobs and so on.
Coordination in large fights will be important and I think certain groups will do certain tasks.
I think it will be different and interesting.
Since Dyamic Events ARE the replacement for quests in the game, and ArenaNet has in no way insinuated that they were not, and that, in fact, you have identified the differentiation between DEs and quests as being the ability for ANYONE to participate in ANY aspect without having to "Accept the quest", as well as the fact that the DE will proceed according to the actions of those in the area.... okay?
Do you think observing these similarities is somehow a slur? Yes, DEs are quests you don't have to accept.
It's more organic and natural then just accepting the quest. The event occurs and you have the choice of participating or not. Sometimes the event is such that you need to trigger it, other times it is sort of a timed event and you'll have to be there at that time or you will miss it.
What is different as well is that the big events, such as the Shatterer, will scale to how many people are there. If you want to compare them to PQs in Warhammer go ahead but it has several improvements upon them. The biggest improvement is the scalability of the event. So whether you are solo or there are 50 players there the event will scale accordingly. PQs in War were static and that proved to be one of its downfall.