Skill based? Or twitch based, which means a FPS an a focus on it being a FPS style game. Which as I said isn't what I want from an MMORPG. Am I going to keep an eye on it? Sure, and I might play but right now I am of a mind not to play which in the end is what I ended up doing with Warhammer. I like Jeff Grubb, I am a long time gamer dating back to the mid 1970s, so I do have solid ideas on what I feel is a role-playing game and what isn't. Flashy graphics won't keep me playing a game, I like a solid mechanics system behind the graphics, depth of class, skills, crafting. A solid pvp game mechanics which includes in that seige warfare etc.
Btw I am glad to read that the under water issue isn't an issue. I've just finished pretty much reading this whole thread and learning that was one off of my check list of concerns. Honestly I don't mind tossing 40 to 80 bucks down for a game so it isn't a money issue. I just don't want to play a FPS style game and if I have to explain the differences between a FPS style game and a MMORPG then there is no reason to bother. Oh and again I like pvp, so I'm not someone who can't handle that or is only a pve sort of player.
Anyhow as I said I'll keep an eye on the game, I am interested in seeing where it goes. I am also keeping an eye on the other games in the pipe, Wizardry though not a true mmorpg I find interesting, death with a sting like it used to be...how refreshing.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
WAR was an example of PERSISTENT changes in the open world. People moved through the RvR lakes, and when I first played WAR at launch, you could easily just post up at a common entrance and stop enemy players from coming in if you wanted to. You could take a keep and keep it indefinitely. You can't do that in GW2.
ok so still I dont think people understand the class system. Switching weapons is switching "roles" mid combat due to what ever the group needs , The game is not about the single player but the group as a whole, just as guild wars 1 Is. having skills then mess well with you group is critical to your sucess in the game.
When increasing the need for well designed groups becomes shallow and sandbox qualities with-in classes (jack of all trades, no boaring talent trees just different Traits you load and unload) Is DEEMED SHALLOW.....then MMOs as we know it die. when a game is hyped due it being a rail game when you move from quest hub to quest hub and then end game raid...man how do you think all industry works, innovation is need for better, smoother products.
When you loose the drive to innovate you loose your passion. the time for slight twiking is over, change needs to happen in an industry domanted by WoW, I have no problems with WoW,
BUT want to know why WoW clones dont reach WoW numbers of subs....because why play something that is like WoW, but now WoW
Guild Wars 2 is different, the innovation they bring is staggering, and not everyone who loves MMOs will like it. But the the game has few, if any shallow qualites
No one can do everything, that isn't realistic. It makes the game rather vanilla and lacking of depth. It feeds into the "now common" concept of "ADD or ADDH " or what ever acronymn the drug companies are selling everyone on. It also removes the need for team work and players seeking each other out, basically it is in my opinion an continuation of what WoW and some other games started which is a dumbing down of the challenge/risk/reward concept. Giving into the "I want what I want, and I want it now!" game design concept.
I personally think that gamers have "lost" the passion to strive to achieve, to interact with other players and work out a way, plan to over come some big nasty monster. Change can be a good thing, but the changes I've been watching for the past decade have been a real mixed bag at best. Some good stuff, some great innovations, great things that were no possible in the 90's are now possible. So much is now possible but instead we've got game design that makes for a swallow game experience.
I don't disagree with you that GW2 is different, again though I don't think it is all good, it to me is just the next step on the stairway that WoW started. Instant gradification games are games that players lose interest in quickly, wouldn't you rather immerse yourself in a game where you could play for years? Maybe not, I know I prefer that, but to each his own.
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Well you have to look at it like this. You will capture keeps, towers, resource nodes, villages, caravans, and your job is to help hold those while progressing to take over your enemies and hold that ground. It will be severely contested and you will be getting fights everywhere. Your solo guy has his place, your tight knit rogue groups have theirs, and your zerg mentallity people have their place. Just don't look at it as a loss of persistence, because I don't believe that is what ANet intended. What it is, is them taking DAoC and asking hmm, how can we improve upon this?
Well answer number one is: Actually allow somebody to indefinitely win. How do we do this? We implement a week long match, and finally there is an indefinite winner.
Answer number two, if one of the factions on a server, or even in a server cluster has much better players that PvP than x servers, then x servers are going to be in hell for the entirety of the game and probably jump to the other faction, or server. Thus, GW2 already didn't have factions, so it would have had to been with server clusters in the first place, but they didn't stop there. They implemented a system that helps the strong and helps the weak. You will be paired by your server strength, so this always presents a challenge for the strong servers, and it gives the weaker servers fighting chances because they are actually at their competition levels.
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
Going to have to agree with all the points made by the thread starter. They are pretty much the same issues I have with the game as well. On top of that I'll add that I honestly don't like it when you don't have to specialize in anything, that anyone can do anything from combat to healing to raising. Basically though the game looks impressive visually, game mechanics it comes off as very vanilla and boring.
I expect more depth from a MMORPG, and this games mechanics are coming off like a FPS instead. Nothing wrong with being a FPS mind you, it is just not what I want from my MMORPGs. At this stage due to what the thread starter posted and my own added criticial views I doubt I'll try the game. I tend to try out most MMORPGs as they come out, instead with this one I'll just keep an eye on it like I did with Warhammer.
ok so still I dont think people understand the class system. Switching weapons is switching "roles" mid combat due to what ever the group needs , The game is not about the single player but the group as a whole, just as guild wars 1 Is. having skills then mess well with you group is critical to your sucess in the game.
When increasing the need for well designed groups becomes shallow and sandbox qualities with-in classes (jack of all trades, no boaring talent trees just different Traits you load and unload) Is DEEMED SHALLOW.....then MMOs as we know it die. when a game is hyped due it being a rail game when you move from quest hub to quest hub and then end game raid...man how do you think all industry works, innovation is need for better, smoother products.
When you loose the drive to innovate you loose your passion. the time for slight twiking is over, change needs to happen in an industry domanted by WoW, I have no problems with WoW,
BUT want to know why WoW clones dont reach WoW numbers of subs....because why play something that is like WoW, but now WoW
Guild Wars 2 is different, the innovation they bring is staggering, and not everyone who loves MMOs will like it. But the the game has few, if any shallow qualites
Why because its doomed for failure. Not 1 clone has been as succussful and its not because the game was any better or any worse. its because the WoW style is overdone and due for the next innovation and not some quick, throw a 200 hours of story telling on top of the same game fix either. In order for the genre to evolve you need innovation and innovation breeds competition and innovation moves the genre forward.
Ohh theres a new theme im begingto see on alot of forums, I call it the "innovation shmenovation" phenomenom. And it seems quit of few fans of the genre are content to see game companies continue to make the same game over and over and speak of innovation as a curse word. The problem with this line of reasoning is its mostly rabid SWToR fanboys blathing incessently about you dont need innovation for the genre to evolve, or the MMO gamer who first started with WoW, and think that any game not a clone of WoW is doomed to failure. The problem with both of these is they are both wrong. The former is blind to their own fanboyism and the latter is blind to the last 6 years of failed or partially failed who have gone FTP of all the WoW clones.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
You guys are critiquing the bad points of a system that has not been fully disclosed, and you somehow think you know the facts of what is good or bad about it. God the only thing we know about WvWvW is the few bits of information we have got through interviews, ANet hasn’t even did a blog post on it yet. In fact the only people that know the full details about WvWvW and even how server transferees fit into that scenario is ANet.
I am even going to say the only criticism that can be applied to WvWvW right now is "I do not like the idea of it". Because that is it that we know, let me repeat this again we do not know the full facts of WvWvW yet. So how in name of everything good and holy are you discussing the bad points of something you do know enough about to fill a thimble.
Ah to hell with it, I am going to join in and start talking about the bad points of things that have not been full revealed yet. You know I really do not like the PVP in Blizzard’ Titan, I just cannot believe they are doing that there is no way they are going to make that balanced. /slit wrist
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
You guys are critiquing the bad points of a system that has not been fully disclosed, and you somehow think you know the facts of what is good or bad about it. God the only thing we know about WvWvW is the few bits of information we have got through interviews, ANet hasn’t even did a blog post on it yet. In fact the only people that know the full details about WvWvW and even how server transferees fit into that scenario is ANet.
I am even going to say the only criticism that can be applied to WvWvW right now is "I do not like the idea of it". Because that is it that we know, let me repeat this again we do not know the full facts of WvWvW yet. So how in name of everything good and holy are you discussing the bad points of something you do know enough about to fill a thimble.
Ah to hell with it, I am going to join in and start talking about the bad points of things that have not been full revealed yet. You know I really do not like the PVP in Blizzard’ Titan, I just cannot believe they are doing that there is no way they are going to make that balanced. /slit wrist
I'm actually talking about the information that HAS been released, and relating it to the information we still do not know yet. Its a 3 faction system. Its a roundrobin tournament style of gameplay. We know why 3 faction systems are great, but in a system that only allows for 1 winner, with no persistent world because it gets reset every week, I just don't think a 3 faction system is really all that necessary.
Again I didn't say it won't be fun. I didn't even say I wouldn't play it. People complain all the time on other games over features they have much less information on. I don't see why if I have a few valid concerns I can't at least bring it up and talk about it.
No one can do everything, that isn't realistic. It makes the game rather vanilla and lacking of depth. It feeds into the "now common" concept of "ADD or ADDH " or what ever acronymn the drug companies are selling everyone on. It also removes the need for team work and players seeking each other out, basically it is in my opinion an continuation of what WoW and some other games started which is a dumbing down of the challenge/risk/reward concept. Giving into the "I want what I want, and I want it now!" game design concept.
I personally think that gamers have "lost" the passion to strive to achieve, to interact with other players and work out a way, plan to over come some big nasty monster. Change can be a good thing, but the changes I've been watching for the past decade have been a real mixed bag at best. Some good stuff, some great innovations, great things that were no possible in the 90's are now possible. So much is now possible but instead we've got game design that makes for a swallow game experience.
I don't disagree with you that GW2 is different, again though I don't think it is all good, it to me is just the next step on the stairway that WoW started. Instant gradification games are games that players lose interest in quickly, wouldn't you rather immerse yourself in a game where you could play for years? Maybe not, I know I prefer that, but to each his own.
Skill based? Or twitch based, which means a FPS an a focus on it being a FPS style game. Which as I said isn't what I want from an MMORPG. Am I going to keep an eye on it? Sure, and I might play but right now I am of a mind not to play which in the end is what I ended up doing with Warhammer. I like Jeff Grubb, I am a long time gamer dating back to the mid 1970s, so I do have solid ideas on what I feel is a role-playing game and what isn't. Flashy graphics won't keep me playing a game, I like a solid mechanics system behind the graphics, depth of class, skills, crafting. A solid pvp game mechanics which includes in that seige warfare etc.
Btw I am glad to read that the under water issue isn't an issue. I've just finished pretty much reading this whole thread and learning that was one off of my check list of concerns. Honestly I don't mind tossing 40 to 80 bucks down for a game so it isn't a money issue. I just don't want to play a FPS style game and if I have to explain the differences between a FPS style game and a MMORPG then there is no reason to bother. Oh and again I like pvp, so I'm not someone who can't handle that or is only a pve sort of player.
Anyhow as I said I'll keep an eye on the game, I am interested in seeing where it goes. I am also keeping an eye on the other games in the pipe, Wizardry though not a true mmorpg I find interesting, death with a sting like it used to be...how refreshing.
Skill based as in, the balance is that of an FPS, not twitch based. You cannot aim single target skills in GW2. It will be skill based because the playing fields are evened, positioning will be paramount, and you can use your roll skill wisely to avoid dmg. with no auto-attacks comming at you from enemies instantly hitting you.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
WAR was an example of PERSISTENT changes in the open world. People moved through the RvR lakes, and when I first played WAR at launch, you could easily just post up at a common entrance and stop enemy players from coming in if you wanted to. You could take a keep and keep it indefinitely. You can't do that in GW2.
No you couldn't, once you logged off somebody came and took that keep back. In GW2 you will take the keep and keep it if people stay on and do so, and when you win or lose you will start over again in a week, however it will be persistent for a week. What is the gripe? Don't give me some bull about keeping a keep for over a week, because in WAR that never happened...
ok so still I dont think people understand the class system. Switching weapons is switching "roles" mid combat due to what ever the group needs , The game is not about the single player but the group as a whole, just as guild wars 1 Is. having skills then mess well with you group is critical to your sucess in the game.
When increasing the need for well designed groups becomes shallow and sandbox qualities with-in classes (jack of all trades, no boaring talent trees just different Traits you load and unload) Is DEEMED SHALLOW.....then MMOs as we know it die. when a game is hyped due it being a rail game when you move from quest hub to quest hub and then end game raid...man how do you think all industry works, innovation is need for better, smoother products.
When you loose the drive to innovate you loose your passion. the time for slight twiking is over, change needs to happen in an industry domanted by WoW, I have no problems with WoW,
BUT want to know why WoW clones dont reach WoW numbers of subs....because why play something that is like WoW, but now WoW
Guild Wars 2 is different, the innovation they bring is staggering, and not everyone who loves MMOs will like it. But the the game has few, if any shallow qualites
No one can do everything, that isn't realistic. It makes the game rather vanilla and lacking of depth. It feeds into the "now common" concept of "ADD or ADDH " or what ever acronymn the drug companies are selling everyone on. It also removes the need for team work and players seeking each other out, basically it is in my opinion an continuation of what WoW and some other games started which is a dumbing down of the challenge/risk/reward concept. Giving into the "I want what I want, and I want it now!" game design concept.
I personally think that gamers have "lost" the passion to strive to achieve, to interact with other players and work out a way, plan to over come some big nasty monster. Change can be a good thing, but the changes I've been watching for the past decade have been a real mixed bag at best. Some good stuff, some great innovations, great things that were no possible in the 90's are now possible. So much is now possible but instead we've got game design that makes for a swallow game experience.
I don't disagree with you that GW2 is different, again though I don't think it is all good, it to me is just the next step on the stairway that WoW started. Instant gradification games are games that players lose interest in quickly, wouldn't you rather immerse yourself in a game where you could play for years? Maybe not, I know I prefer that, but to each his own.
You see, you are presenting a bit of a closed mindedness in this situation. If you go and read some of the hands ons, some of them describe the grouping experiences as close to P&P adventures. I highly disagree that GW2 design choice is appealing to the instant gratification generation, in fact that's what WoW, Rift, and other games of the sort are doing. Now are you supposed to have fun as soon as you log into a game? Of course, that's what I do with my single player games, but that does not mean they are giving you everything and making it easy. No that is far from the truth..
In fact, if you go look at the hands ons from everyone that has touched it, they say that grouping is very strong in this game. You say that everyone can't do everything.. Well they can't.. Everyone can't do everything that every other class can do the same way. Some classes are better in the way they control, some classes are better in their durability, some classes are better in their supporting, but they all have their ways of doing these things. Actually, this approach is much more realistic than the stuck in a box holy trinity you assume this hard role system. You do things as a group of heroes really would to things. Okay, there's a bunch of minions, let us destroy them, oh no someone just came in and is wailing on my partner, you hop in between them and let's say enact an impassible wall to get your partner to safety. Then, you get out the way as your partners help dispatch of the guy. Everyone, is doing their part, there is no dedicated healer keeping people up, everyone is making sure they have good positioning and they are taking care of each other through their actions.
All heals that are in the game are proximity based, so that really takes coordination to get your group to actually get in the proximity of it, support skills are proximity based, absorption skills so on and so forth. Hey I just put down the firewall, engineer drag them through it! Guardian put down your impassible wall so he's stuck in the firewall! Now ranger fire your arrows through and get bonus fire dmg! This system is highly group oriented. I just think you are looking at it from the wrong light. We aren't given a small constricted box, we are given a playground. Change your weapons around get new skills, select your utility skills, customize your traits to take on different effects with your skills, switch between 2 weapon sets during combat to do different things on the fly. I really don't see this applying a gimme gimme system for the ones with ADD, this is a weaving set for groups, this system is going to involve much more coordination than your simple, taunt okay got aggro on me, dps stand behind him watch out for cleave, and healer just keep that bar up system.
I'm actually talking about the information that HAS been released, and relating it to the information we still do not know yet. Its a 3 faction system. Its a roundrobin tournament style of gameplay. We know why 3 faction systems are great, but in a system that only allows for 1 winner, with no persistent world because it gets reset every week, I just don't think a 3 faction system is really all that necessary.
Again I didn't say it won't be fun. I didn't even say I wouldn't play it. People complain all the time on other games over features they have much less information on. I don't see why if I have a few valid concerns I can't at least bring it up and talk about it.
Do you know why ANet choose to make a 3 faction system? Do you know what elements they are putting into WvWvW to support the 3 faction system? Do you know how the winner of WvWvW is decided? Do you absolutely know it will only last for a week, I have heard it could be two weeks, but who knows it might end up being 3 weeks, in the end the fact is we do not! Do you know every single detail about the WvWvW system to make an educated decision that a 3 faction system is not needed, or you going with the force here? Do you know how the 5 maps are exactly setup so you know what kind of system the design supports? Do you know what the effects will be for the side that wins in WvWvW or what happened if anything to the sides that lose? Do you know if they switch to a two faction system if it would have any negative affects concerning how the maps are designed? Do you know how the system is exactly setup to so everyone no matter the level can help their world, in other words could you give a 1000 word speech and give example on how a level 1, level 10, level 20 and so on can effect WvWvW? Do you know if there will be a reset window after the winner is decided and the world match up changes, or can we access the 5 maps at anytime no matter what?
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. If not I can come back with another post and give you another 50 questions.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
WAR was an example of PERSISTENT changes in the open world. People moved through the RvR lakes, and when I first played WAR at launch, you could easily just post up at a common entrance and stop enemy players from coming in if you wanted to. You could take a keep and keep it indefinitely. You can't do that in GW2.
No you couldn't, once you logged off somebody came and took that keep back. In GW2 you will take the keep and keep it if people stay on and do so, and when you win or lose you will start over again in a week, however it will be persistent for a week. What is the gripe? Don't give me some bull about keeping a keep for over a week, because in WAR that never happened...
But the server didn't automatically take the keep back. WAR was just an example of persistent changes. Had no one contested it, you would have kept the keep, you could have for more than a week.
In Fallen Earth, contested towns were kept for weeks at a time, (or sometimes only a day or two) sometimes with battles for towns lasting hours. Just turning a town took 4 - 6 hours of full group involvement, and that was just to remove control to neutral, then regain control under your faction. That doesn't even count for putting in guards and merchants. 2 people could contest that town, but it would take days for just 2 people to take a contested area, in comparison to a full group of 10+ people... and if we were around when another group was trying to take it, a fight would break out. Many times you'd have multiple groups trying to take it for their faction at the same time.
WAR was just an example. I think you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't like it.
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Well you have to look at it like this. You will capture keeps, towers, resource nodes, villages, caravans, and your job is to help hold those while progressing to take over your enemies and hold that ground. It will be severely contested and you will be getting fights everywhere. Your solo guy has his place, your tight knit rogue groups have theirs, and your zerg mentallity people have their place. Just don't look at it as a loss of persistence, because I don't believe that is what ANet intended. What it is, is them taking DAoC and asking hmm, how can we improve upon this?
Well answer number one is: Actually allow somebody to indefinitely win. How do we do this? We implement a week long match, and finally there is an indefinite winner.
Answer number two, if one of the factions on a server, or even in a server cluster has much better players that PvP than x servers, then x servers are going to be in hell for the entirety of the game and probably jump to the other faction, or server. Thus, GW2 already didn't have factions, so it would have had to been with server clusters in the first place, but they didn't stop there. They implemented a system that helps the strong and helps the weak. You will be paired by your server strength, so this always presents a challenge for the strong servers, and it gives the weaker servers fighting chances because they are actually at their competition levels.
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
There is no issue with this and 3 faction system. It applies an unpredictability to the PvP. It applies a balance all the way from the very beginning. The 3 faction system was awesome, and it fits with this. The winner will go on to face other servers coming off of wins. We don't know how zerg mentallity servers will play out against smaller more coordinated servers yet, but the answer to your question is simple. If a server with lower pop faces a much larger server because it has a high win ration, and they fail to win. Then, ummm they face other servers next week who are better matched. We don't know the specifics of the matchmaking so we can't delve much into that right now, but the way it is set up is it will be constantly changing so balance will be fine... Also, they have already said they are working on restrictions for server changing with WvW specifically in mind..
I'm actually talking about the information that HAS been released, and relating it to the information we still do not know yet. Its a 3 faction system. Its a roundrobin tournament style of gameplay. We know why 3 faction systems are great, but in a system that only allows for 1 winner, with no persistent world because it gets reset every week, I just don't think a 3 faction system is really all that necessary.
Again I didn't say it won't be fun. I didn't even say I wouldn't play it. People complain all the time on other games over features they have much less information on. I don't see why if I have a few valid concerns I can't at least bring it up and talk about it.
Do you know why ANet choose to make a 3 faction system? Do you know what elements they are putting into WvWvW to support the 3 faction system? Do you know how the winner of WvWvW is decided? Do you absolutely know it will only last for a week, I have heard it could be two weeks, but who knows it might end up being 3 weeks, in the end the fact is we do not! Do you know every single detail about the WvWvW system to make an educated decision that a 3 faction system is not needed, or you going with the force here? Do you know how the 5 maps are exactly setup so you know what kind of system the design supports? Do you know what the effects will be for the side that wins in WvWvW or what happened if anything to the sides that lose? Do you know if they switch to a two faction system if it would have any negative affects concerning how the maps are designed? Do you know how the system is exactly setup to so everyone no matter the level can help their world, in other words could you give a 1000 word speech and give example on how a level 1, level 10, level 20 and so on can effect WvWvW? Do you know if there will be a reset window after the winner is decided and the world match up changes, or can we access the 5 maps at anytime no matter what?
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. If not I can come back with another post and give you another 50 questions.
Sorry, but your questions don't mean anything to me. You are taking one piece of the entire thread that you want to nitpick me on, like thats somehow helpful in any way, but truly my concerns are stated very simply for you to read and reread if you want. This is my perception and my questions regarding it. If you can clarify any of these for me RIGHT NOW, then lets this thread die today. If you want to push more questions my way and add to more blatant conjecture then I can oblige, but I'm basing my perception off of information I've read.
You are complaining about my posts in particular, but read those replying to me. They are the ones talking about matching up weak worlds together, they are talking about week long stints of combat, they are the ones talking about single players attacking supply lines and players scaling and leveling all the way up in W v W v W. If you want to get me to stop posting my issues with these systems that the very same proponents for the game are using to convince me otherwise with, then you should talk to the people who are "pro" non-persistent W v W v W. Otherwise, if you aren't going to provide any pertinent feedback in this discussion then I don't think theres much else you and I have to talk about.
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Well you have to look at it like this. You will capture keeps, towers, resource nodes, villages, caravans, and your job is to help hold those while progressing to take over your enemies and hold that ground. It will be severely contested and you will be getting fights everywhere. Your solo guy has his place, your tight knit rogue groups have theirs, and your zerg mentallity people have their place. Just don't look at it as a loss of persistence, because I don't believe that is what ANet intended. What it is, is them taking DAoC and asking hmm, how can we improve upon this?
Well answer number one is: Actually allow somebody to indefinitely win. How do we do this? We implement a week long match, and finally there is an indefinite winner.
Answer number two, if one of the factions on a server, or even in a server cluster has much better players that PvP than x servers, then x servers are going to be in hell for the entirety of the game and probably jump to the other faction, or server. Thus, GW2 already didn't have factions, so it would have had to been with server clusters in the first place, but they didn't stop there. They implemented a system that helps the strong and helps the weak. You will be paired by your server strength, so this always presents a challenge for the strong servers, and it gives the weaker servers fighting chances because they are actually at their competition levels.
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
There is no issue with this and 3 faction system. It applies an unpredictability to the PvP. It applies a balance all the way from the very beginning. The 3 faction system was awesome, and it fits with this. The winner will go on to face other servers coming off of wins. We don't know how zerg mentallity servers will play out against smaller more coordinated servers yet, but the answer to your question is simple. If a server with lower pop faces a much larger server because it has a high win ration, and they fail to win. Then, ummm they face other servers next week who are better matched. We don't know the specifics of the matchmaking so we can't delve much into that right now, but the way it is set up is it will be constantly changing so balance will be fine... Also, they have already said they are working on restrictions for server changing with WvW specifically in mind..
I can accept that. I'll still be somewhat skeptical about it, but I can accept a wait and see mentality.
While I do agree that the 3 faction system does provide some sense of unpredictability, it was more in line with providing balance for 2 factions that were outmatched. But if 3 factions are all matched evenly, then it will just be a 3 faction free for all. If they somehow aren't matched evenly then it doesn't matter how well coordinated 2 factions together are, only one will win and I fear cooperation would suffer because of it. Thats just one reason why persistent PvP is ideal to me, because if you are always facing the same sides, guilds, etc. you get to know when you need to bring extra manpower, or when a temporary alliance with another faction would be necessary. It doesn't mean I don't like things like Arena matches, its more of a preference than anything.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
WAR was an example of PERSISTENT changes in the open world. People moved through the RvR lakes, and when I first played WAR at launch, you could easily just post up at a common entrance and stop enemy players from coming in if you wanted to. You could take a keep and keep it indefinitely. You can't do that in GW2.
No you couldn't, once you logged off somebody came and took that keep back. In GW2 you will take the keep and keep it if people stay on and do so, and when you win or lose you will start over again in a week, however it will be persistent for a week. What is the gripe? Don't give me some bull about keeping a keep for over a week, because in WAR that never happened...
But the server didn't automatically take the keep back. WAR was just an example of persistent changes. Had no one contested it, you would have kept the keep, you could have for more than a week.
In Fallen Earth, contested towns were kept for weeks at a time, (or sometimes only a day or two) sometimes with battles for towns lasting hours. Just turning a town took 4 - 6 hours of full group involvement, and that was just to remove control to neutral, then regain control under your faction. That doesn't even count for putting in guards and merchants. 2 people could contest that town, but it would take days for just 2 people to take a contested area, in comparison to a full group of 10+ people... and if we were around when another group was trying to take it, a fight would break out. Many times you'd have multiple groups trying to take it for their faction at the same time.
WAR was just an example. I think you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't like it.
What I'm trying to say, and what you can't wrap your head around.. Sorry for the frustration. Is that this is still persistent and lasting till there is a winner. In a real war, there isn't just a constant tussle going on forever with no victors. No, in almost all cases somebody loses, and then it's on to the next. This is represented here, you can take your keeps and hold them throughout the week or however long the matches will last, and then when you dispose of your enemies you go on to the next.
The reason I'm getting frustrated here, is because your sitting here knit picking on an issue that is hardly never done. You know that in WAR you did not defend one single keep for over a week, most of the time when you went to sleep it would get taken back. That is what I'm trying to say, you are just sitting here knit picking on little details that don't matter, it's like you're griping just to gripe. What?!?! I can't hold a keep for over a week?! That's stupid! You ever played for over a week straight with no sleep?
ok so still I dont think people understand the class system. Switching weapons is switching "roles" mid combat due to what ever the group needs , The game is not about the single player but the group as a whole, just as guild wars 1 Is. having skills then mess well with you group is critical to your sucess in the game.
When increasing the need for well designed groups becomes shallow and sandbox qualities with-in classes (jack of all trades, no boaring talent trees just different Traits you load and unload) Is DEEMED SHALLOW.....then MMOs as we know it die. when a game is hyped due it being a rail game when you move from quest hub to quest hub and then end game raid...man how do you think all industry works, innovation is need for better, smoother products.
When you loose the drive to innovate you loose your passion. the time for slight twiking is over, change needs to happen in an industry domanted by WoW, I have no problems with WoW,
BUT want to know why WoW clones dont reach WoW numbers of subs....because why play something that is like WoW, but now WoW
Guild Wars 2 is different, the innovation they bring is staggering, and not everyone who loves MMOs will like it. But the the game has few, if any shallow qualites
No one can do everything, that isn't realistic. It makes the game rather vanilla and lacking of depth. It feeds into the "now common" concept of "ADD or ADDH " or what ever acronymn the drug companies are selling everyone on. It also removes the need for team work and players seeking each other out, basically it is in my opinion an continuation of what WoW and some other games started which is a dumbing down of the challenge/risk/reward concept. Giving into the "I want what I want, and I want it now!" game design concept.
I personally think that gamers have "lost" the passion to strive to achieve, to interact with other players and work out a way, plan to over come some big nasty monster. Change can be a good thing, but the changes I've been watching for the past decade have been a real mixed bag at best. Some good stuff, some great innovations, great things that were no possible in the 90's are now possible. So much is now possible but instead we've got game design that makes for a swallow game experience.
I don't disagree with you that GW2 is different, again though I don't think it is all good, it to me is just the next step on the stairway that WoW started. Instant gradification games are games that players lose interest in quickly, wouldn't you rather immerse yourself in a game where you could play for years? Maybe not, I know I prefer that, but to each his own.
I started playing MMORPGS with DAoC, I understand how the industry has changed, but I don't see here how you can say Guild Wars 2 is a game for those who want Instant gradification. and they are not removing player interaction they are making so I dont have to sit around and look for a tank or a healer for an hour just to play my high level content. Guild Wars 2 gets you to max fast, so you cna enjoy your time playing but its hardly the end.
I have been playing Guild Wars off and on for about 5 years, the lore of the game and the story it tells are grand and very epic in scale. People care about this lore just like any other game. and when a game has a rich established lore People care when it is violated. You get to max level in Guild Wars in under a day, (if you start from factions) but please getting max is not even rewarding...because you know as a player that your story is just starting. With Guild War it is about skill and the skills you bring to your party, you gear and weapons will always have the max stats on them becuase max wepons are easy to find. its the content that makes the game hard and fun and challenging , not the fact that I need to run this instance 20 times just to get my last piece of armor so i can go on to the next level of instancing.
I LOVE TO INVEST IN MY GAMING, and you know what ,a dynamic world that has the ability to make a zone different every time I walk though it makes me feel as if the world changes day to day as it has the ability to in real life, CAN I PLAY IN AN EVER CHANGING WORLD, yes. for years and years, OHH YEAH
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Well you have to look at it like this. You will capture keeps, towers, resource nodes, villages, caravans, and your job is to help hold those while progressing to take over your enemies and hold that ground. It will be severely contested and you will be getting fights everywhere. Your solo guy has his place, your tight knit rogue groups have theirs, and your zerg mentallity people have their place. Just don't look at it as a loss of persistence, because I don't believe that is what ANet intended. What it is, is them taking DAoC and asking hmm, how can we improve upon this?
Well answer number one is: Actually allow somebody to indefinitely win. How do we do this? We implement a week long match, and finally there is an indefinite winner.
Answer number two, if one of the factions on a server, or even in a server cluster has much better players that PvP than x servers, then x servers are going to be in hell for the entirety of the game and probably jump to the other faction, or server. Thus, GW2 already didn't have factions, so it would have had to been with server clusters in the first place, but they didn't stop there. They implemented a system that helps the strong and helps the weak. You will be paired by your server strength, so this always presents a challenge for the strong servers, and it gives the weaker servers fighting chances because they are actually at their competition levels.
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
There is no issue with this and 3 faction system. It applies an unpredictability to the PvP. It applies a balance all the way from the very beginning. The 3 faction system was awesome, and it fits with this. The winner will go on to face other servers coming off of wins. We don't know how zerg mentallity servers will play out against smaller more coordinated servers yet, but the answer to your question is simple. If a server with lower pop faces a much larger server because it has a high win ration, and they fail to win. Then, ummm they face other servers next week who are better matched. We don't know the specifics of the matchmaking so we can't delve much into that right now, but the way it is set up is it will be constantly changing so balance will be fine... Also, they have already said they are working on restrictions for server changing with WvW specifically in mind..
I can accept that. I'll still be somewhat skeptical about it, but I can accept a wait and see mentality.
While I do agree that the 3 faction system does provide some sense of unpredictability, it was more in line with providing balance for 2 factions that were outmatched. But if 3 factions are all matched evenly, then it will just be a 3 faction free for all. If they somehow aren't matched evenly then it doesn't matter how well coordinated 2 factions together are, only one will win and I fear cooperation would suffer because of it. Thats just one reason why persistent PvP is ideal to me, because if you are always facing the same sides, guilds, etc. you get to know when you need to bring extra manpower, or when a temporary alliance with another faction would be necessary. It doesn't mean I don't like things like Arena matches, its more of a preference than anything.
You are basing this off of other games you have played, but you don't even know hoe GW2 PvP is. The skill level represented in GW2 is something we haven't seen in MMO's, I've already quoted it once that a dev spoke of one dev taking out 9 other players simply cause he was much better. If a very good group oriented server gets matched with a server that was just mindlessly zerging for its wins, there is a good possibility that they could still win. You're gonna get matched by your strength and that is all that matters, and if 3 servers are evenly matched it doesn't really matter the 3 faction system is there for maybe when this server has more people that log off at this time, or maybe this one comes out in force at a different time. It is so that there will always be a constant threat for all servers and it won't be just a war of times between 2 servers.
Sorry, but your questions don't mean anything to me. You are taking one piece of the entire thread that you want to nitpick me on, like thats somehow helpful in any way, but truly my concerns are stated very simply for you to read and reread if you want. This is my perception and my questions regarding it. If you can clarify any of these for me RIGHT NOW, then lets this thread die today. If you want to push more questions my way and add to more blatant conjecture then I can oblige, but I'm basing my perception off of information I've read.
You are complaining about my posts in particular, but read those replying to me. They are the ones talking about matching up weak worlds together, they are talking about week long stints of combat, they are the ones talking about single players attacking supply lines and players scaling and leveling all the way up in W v W v W. If you want to get me to stop posting my issues with these systems that the very same proponents for the game are using to convince me otherwise with, then you should talk to the people who are "pro" non-persistent W v W v W. Otherwise, if you aren't going to provide any pertinent feedback in this discussion then I don't think theres much else you and I have to talk about.
Well if you noticed I did not say you in my initial comment, I said you guys. In my opinion you all are acting like a bunch of fools, arguing over something you do not know anything about, and then acting like you have enough information to actually make an educated decision. Has the thought ever occurred to any of you that what we know right now might not even be the official blog release when it happens? WvWvW might not have 5 maps, it might last for a month, and it might have purple rainbows flying out of its orifices. Take a look at how much the attribute system, or the Necromancer, or the Elementalist has changes since they were announced. And then think for a second how much a system that has never been official announced might change before they reveal it.
But you people are so right let’s keep discussing the finer points of WvWvW with the absolutely stunning little information we have. Who cares about the fact that we really do not know anything about it, and what we know might not even be in the official reveal.
I could see the merit of this conversation if it was something officially revealed like the underwater combat and the developers are looking for feedback. But this has not been revealed yet, only ANet knows all the facts about WvWvW. But cares about facts or information lets continue to argue like ignorant fools.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
WAR was an example of PERSISTENT changes in the open world. People moved through the RvR lakes, and when I first played WAR at launch, you could easily just post up at a common entrance and stop enemy players from coming in if you wanted to. You could take a keep and keep it indefinitely. You can't do that in GW2.
No you couldn't, once you logged off somebody came and took that keep back. In GW2 you will take the keep and keep it if people stay on and do so, and when you win or lose you will start over again in a week, however it will be persistent for a week. What is the gripe? Don't give me some bull about keeping a keep for over a week, because in WAR that never happened...
But the server didn't automatically take the keep back. WAR was just an example of persistent changes. Had no one contested it, you would have kept the keep, you could have for more than a week.
In Fallen Earth, contested towns were kept for weeks at a time, (or sometimes only a day or two) sometimes with battles for towns lasting hours. Just turning a town took 4 - 6 hours of full group involvement, and that was just to remove control to neutral, then regain control under your faction. That doesn't even count for putting in guards and merchants. 2 people could contest that town, but it would take days for just 2 people to take a contested area, in comparison to a full group of 10+ people... and if we were around when another group was trying to take it, a fight would break out. Many times you'd have multiple groups trying to take it for their faction at the same time.
WAR was just an example. I think you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't like it.
What I'm trying to say, and what you can't wrap your head around.. Sorry for the frustration. Is that this is still persistent and lasting till there is a winner. In a real war, there isn't just a constant tussle going on forever with no victors. No, in almost all cases somebody loses, and then it's on to the next. This is represented here, you can take your keeps and hold them throughout the week or however long the matches will last, and then when you dispose of your enemies you go on to the next.
The reason I'm getting frustrated here, is because your sitting here knit picking on an issue that is hardly never done. You know that in WAR you did not defend one single keep for over a week, most of the time when you went to sleep it would get taken back. That is what I'm trying to say, you are just sitting here knit picking on little details that don't matter, it's like you're griping just to gripe. What?!?! I can't hold a keep for over a week?! That's stupid! You ever played for over a week straight with no sleep?
I think thats a bad analogy, because in a real war, you keep what you win. In GW2 you keep the stat that you win, but you don't keep the areas, you don't keep the materials. You keep a number. Stop thinking about WAR. Yes you CAN own a keep for over a week, if you wanted to. Thats the thing, is its your CHOICE. Again, reread my experience in Fallen Earth. Look up the battles in Darkfall. Hell, even look at contested zones in DCUO. These are in the open world and persistent. If you want to you can keep these indefinitely if you WANT.
What you are describing is a basketball game. You play until the clock runs out, the one with the most points wins the game. Tomorrow you play another game against a different team and the same thing happens. Every day you play a different basketball game and at the end of the day the game is over and the next day it resets. You have no points, they have no points.
What I'm describing is ...well.... think of it like a game of monopoly. Everyone playing lands somewhere and buys land, that land is yours and you keep it for however long until something happens to where you can no long pay for it (or someone else buys it). No matter how many times people pass over that land, its yours as long as you have the money to run it.
You can build on that land, you can keep that land for 2 days, or 2 weeks as long as Monopoly is still being played. That land is yours. One day someone might be wealthy enough, or you'll be in debt enough where you might lose that land. It might be temporarily, or it might be indefinitely, but its persistent and doesn't go away no matter how much time passes. There is not "winner by default" because the clock ran down to zero. Its take control, keep control, and benefit.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
WAR was an example of PERSISTENT changes in the open world. People moved through the RvR lakes, and when I first played WAR at launch, you could easily just post up at a common entrance and stop enemy players from coming in if you wanted to. You could take a keep and keep it indefinitely. You can't do that in GW2.
No you couldn't, once you logged off somebody came and took that keep back. In GW2 you will take the keep and keep it if people stay on and do so, and when you win or lose you will start over again in a week, however it will be persistent for a week. What is the gripe? Don't give me some bull about keeping a keep for over a week, because in WAR that never happened...
But the server didn't automatically take the keep back. WAR was just an example of persistent changes. Had no one contested it, you would have kept the keep, you could have for more than a week.
In Fallen Earth, contested towns were kept for weeks at a time, (or sometimes only a day or two) sometimes with battles for towns lasting hours. Just turning a town took 4 - 6 hours of full group involvement, and that was just to remove control to neutral, then regain control under your faction. That doesn't even count for putting in guards and merchants. 2 people could contest that town, but it would take days for just 2 people to take a contested area, in comparison to a full group of 10+ people... and if we were around when another group was trying to take it, a fight would break out. Many times you'd have multiple groups trying to take it for their faction at the same time.
WAR was just an example. I think you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't like it.
What I'm trying to say, and what you can't wrap your head around.. Sorry for the frustration. Is that this is still persistent and lasting till there is a winner. In a real war, there isn't just a constant tussle going on forever with no victors. No, in almost all cases somebody loses, and then it's on to the next. This is represented here, you can take your keeps and hold them throughout the week or however long the matches will last, and then when you dispose of your enemies you go on to the next.
The reason I'm getting frustrated here, is because your sitting here knit picking on an issue that is hardly never done. You know that in WAR you did not defend one single keep for over a week, most of the time when you went to sleep it would get taken back. That is what I'm trying to say, you are just sitting here knit picking on little details that don't matter, it's like you're griping just to gripe. What?!?! I can't hold a keep for over a week?! That's stupid! You ever played for over a week straight with no sleep?
I think thats a bad analogy, because in a real war, you keep what you win. In GW2 you keep the stat that you win, but you don't keep the areas, you don't keep the materials. You keep a number. Stop thinking about WAR. Yes you CAN own a keep for over a week, if you wanted to. Thats the thing, is its your CHOICE. Again, reread my experience in Fallen Earth. Look up the battles in Darkfall. Hell, even look at contested zones in DCUO. These are in the open world and persistent. If you want to you can keep these indefinitely if you WANT.
What you are describing is a basketball game. You play until the clock runs out, the one with the most points wins the game. Tomorrow you play another game against a different team and the same thing happens. Every day you play a different basketball game and at the end of the day the game is over and the next day it resets. You have no points, they have no points.
What I'm describing is ...well.... think of it like a game of monopoly. Everyone playing lands somewhere and buys land, that land is yours and you keep it for however long until something happens to where you can no long pay for it (or someone else buys it). No matter how many times people pass over that land, its yours as long as you have the money to run it.
You can build on that land, you can keep that land for 2 days, or 2 weeks as long as Monopoly is still being played. That land is yours. One day someone might be wealthy enough, or you'll be in debt enough where you might lose that land. It might be temporarily, or it might be indefinitely, but its persistent and doesn't go away no matter how much time passes. There is not "winner by default" because the clock ran down to zero. Its take control, keep control, and benefit.
Does that make sense as to what I'm saying?
I understand what you are saying, but even a game of monoply ends with a winner. You see, GW2 is not a sandbox game, so to bring Darkfall into this just doesn't work. Sandbox is about players driving all of the content, and I enjoy those type of games too, but I also enjoy pure competition with a goal and that is to win. GW2, is playing off the spirit of competition here. You see, you are looking at it in the wrong light still, when I said when you defeat your enemies and move on to the next I understand you keep what you have taken. But the way I'm looking at it, is once you've beaten your enemies here, you are now on conquest in a different land to take over. You see? But, it also can be likened to a basketball game, albeit smaller scale battleground fights like in WAR or Rift, or even WoW are more alike, since this match can last for a week or more.
You see, a lot of people like competition with an ending, and they like to win. This is what this system is playing off of, it won't just be constant juggling forever with the same old people, will you meet that server again? Sure its highly probable, but you will wage a war for a week or more and there will be a victor determined, and then you will go on to meet new competition. I like it this way, because you are constantly testing your server against newer competition who may bring different strategies to the table.
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Well you have to look at it like this. You will capture keeps, towers, resource nodes, villages, caravans, and your job is to help hold those while progressing to take over your enemies and hold that ground. It will be severely contested and you will be getting fights everywhere. Your solo guy has his place, your tight knit rogue groups have theirs, and your zerg mentallity people have their place. Just don't look at it as a loss of persistence, because I don't believe that is what ANet intended. What it is, is them taking DAoC and asking hmm, how can we improve upon this?
Well answer number one is: Actually allow somebody to indefinitely win. How do we do this? We implement a week long match, and finally there is an indefinite winner.
Answer number two, if one of the factions on a server, or even in a server cluster has much better players that PvP than x servers, then x servers are going to be in hell for the entirety of the game and probably jump to the other faction, or server. Thus, GW2 already didn't have factions, so it would have had to been with server clusters in the first place, but they didn't stop there. They implemented a system that helps the strong and helps the weak. You will be paired by your server strength, so this always presents a challenge for the strong servers, and it gives the weaker servers fighting chances because they are actually at their competition levels.
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
There is no issue with this and 3 faction system. It applies an unpredictability to the PvP. It applies a balance all the way from the very beginning. The 3 faction system was awesome, and it fits with this. The winner will go on to face other servers coming off of wins. We don't know how zerg mentallity servers will play out against smaller more coordinated servers yet, but the answer to your question is simple. If a server with lower pop faces a much larger server because it has a high win ration, and they fail to win. Then, ummm they face other servers next week who are better matched. We don't know the specifics of the matchmaking so we can't delve much into that right now, but the way it is set up is it will be constantly changing so balance will be fine... Also, they have already said they are working on restrictions for server changing with WvW specifically in mind..
I can accept that. I'll still be somewhat skeptical about it, but I can accept a wait and see mentality.
While I do agree that the 3 faction system does provide some sense of unpredictability, it was more in line with providing balance for 2 factions that were outmatched. But if 3 factions are all matched evenly, then it will just be a 3 faction free for all. If they somehow aren't matched evenly then it doesn't matter how well coordinated 2 factions together are, only one will win and I fear cooperation would suffer because of it. Thats just one reason why persistent PvP is ideal to me, because if you are always facing the same sides, guilds, etc. you get to know when you need to bring extra manpower, or when a temporary alliance with another faction would be necessary. It doesn't mean I don't like things like Arena matches, its more of a preference than anything.
You are basing this off of other games you have played, but you don't even know hoe GW2 PvP is. The skill level represented in GW2 is something we haven't seen in MMO's, I've already quoted it once that a dev spoke of one dev taking out 9 other players simply cause he was much better. If a very good group oriented server gets matched with a server that was just mindlessly zerging for its wins, there is a good possibility that they could still win. You're gonna get matched by your strength and that is all that matters, and if 3 servers are evenly matched it doesn't really matter the 3 faction system is there for maybe when this server has more people that log off at this time, or maybe this one comes out in force at a different time. It is so that there will always be a constant threat for all servers and it won't be just a war of times between 2 servers.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Fallen Earth is a TPS, Darkfall uses FPS/TPS gameplay as well, DCUO is very skill based, TERA requires FPS skills as well. GW2s combat is middle ground between basic WoW gameplay and maybe TERA or DCUO. Some skills lock to enemies, some skills require area positioning or player positioning. Likewise in TERA or DCUO where blocking, dodging and skill combinations matter (as well as environmental variables).
I don't have a problem with GW2s skills (as I played GW1) and how they do their card based bar, nor do I have a problem with the way combat plays out (minus the very flashy animations for some moves). I can only base my opinions on what I've seen just as you are basing yours on what you've seen.
Ok, that was a good article, thanks for the links Zeroxin. I actually liked what the author had to say, and I do feel a bit more positive about the game. Two concerns I do have are deal with underwater/water movement and the raising the fallen character. I have a hard time with ignoring "normal" movement while in water as someone who until injuries spent a lot of time over the past five decades in the water. Don't get me wrong it isn't a deal breaker for me as a gamer, but it is something that does irk me a little.
On the second concern, I am not sure how I feel about how dying/defeated and the mechanics for retoring/raising a fallen characte work. I like a risk/reward system where when you screw up you screw up and have to put some effort into recovering. That's just me, I know many don't feel that way. So it is a concern.
I'd love to see more info on crafting, profession skills and such. Getting more info on that might twitch me over from just sitting on the fence and watching to playing. Gotta love their offices btw, I live not to far from that area so I'm familiar with that style of building design that the author of the article talked about. It is a nice envirement to work in.
Comments
Skill based? Or twitch based, which means a FPS an a focus on it being a FPS style game. Which as I said isn't what I want from an MMORPG. Am I going to keep an eye on it? Sure, and I might play but right now I am of a mind not to play which in the end is what I ended up doing with Warhammer. I like Jeff Grubb, I am a long time gamer dating back to the mid 1970s, so I do have solid ideas on what I feel is a role-playing game and what isn't. Flashy graphics won't keep me playing a game, I like a solid mechanics system behind the graphics, depth of class, skills, crafting. A solid pvp game mechanics which includes in that seige warfare etc.
Btw I am glad to read that the under water issue isn't an issue. I've just finished pretty much reading this whole thread and learning that was one off of my check list of concerns. Honestly I don't mind tossing 40 to 80 bucks down for a game so it isn't a money issue. I just don't want to play a FPS style game and if I have to explain the differences between a FPS style game and a MMORPG then there is no reason to bother. Oh and again I like pvp, so I'm not someone who can't handle that or is only a pve sort of player.
Anyhow as I said I'll keep an eye on the game, I am interested in seeing where it goes. I am also keeping an eye on the other games in the pipe, Wizardry though not a true mmorpg I find interesting, death with a sting like it used to be...how refreshing.
WAR was an example of PERSISTENT changes in the open world. People moved through the RvR lakes, and when I first played WAR at launch, you could easily just post up at a common entrance and stop enemy players from coming in if you wanted to. You could take a keep and keep it indefinitely. You can't do that in GW2.
No one can do everything, that isn't realistic. It makes the game rather vanilla and lacking of depth. It feeds into the "now common" concept of "ADD or ADDH " or what ever acronymn the drug companies are selling everyone on. It also removes the need for team work and players seeking each other out, basically it is in my opinion an continuation of what WoW and some other games started which is a dumbing down of the challenge/risk/reward concept. Giving into the "I want what I want, and I want it now!" game design concept.
I personally think that gamers have "lost" the passion to strive to achieve, to interact with other players and work out a way, plan to over come some big nasty monster. Change can be a good thing, but the changes I've been watching for the past decade have been a real mixed bag at best. Some good stuff, some great innovations, great things that were no possible in the 90's are now possible. So much is now possible but instead we've got game design that makes for a swallow game experience.
I don't disagree with you that GW2 is different, again though I don't think it is all good, it to me is just the next step on the stairway that WoW started. Instant gradification games are games that players lose interest in quickly, wouldn't you rather immerse yourself in a game where you could play for years? Maybe not, I know I prefer that, but to each his own.
You don't see an issue with this and a 3 world system? The idea behind the 3 faction system was to have 2 smaller factions balance out the third larger one if it came to that. Thats why everyone raves about the 3 faction system. In a small instanced week long battle without persistent control and a mix and match of servers each week (which could depend on win/lose ration, but what about server size *which can change on a whim as transfers are free and common*, or participation in W v W v W? What about a smaller server with a higher win/lose ratio but with less players on the server total, but more players participating in W v W v W then another server? How is this going to be balanced and what is balance based on? Sure its easy to say the weaker servers just get grouped with weaker servers, but thats like saying that bad players only get grouped with bad players. Where is the line where a "weak" (lower population, lower participation) server thats won every match gets matched up with the "strong" servers that may or may not totaly destroy them?
Another qualm I have is that two worlds aren't going to balance out the third, more populated or active world because everyone is trying to take the castles, etc, for themselves. At the end of the week there is only 1 winner. 2nd place might give you a slightly higher ranking than 3rd for that week, but you aren't forced into staying on that server so its not like it matters if a server ranks number 1 or number 3, because, if you wanted to, you could just become part of the winning server all the time.
I haven't heard anything about them limiting that other than you can't transfer servers while you are in a W v W v W match with them and participate that same day (or week, I think).
Why because its doomed for failure. Not 1 clone has been as succussful and its not because the game was any better or any worse. its because the WoW style is overdone and due for the next innovation and not some quick, throw a 200 hours of story telling on top of the same game fix either. In order for the genre to evolve you need innovation and innovation breeds competition and innovation moves the genre forward.
Ohh theres a new theme im begingto see on alot of forums, I call it the "innovation shmenovation" phenomenom. And it seems quit of few fans of the genre are content to see game companies continue to make the same game over and over and speak of innovation as a curse word. The problem with this line of reasoning is its mostly rabid SWToR fanboys blathing incessently about you dont need innovation for the genre to evolve, or the MMO gamer who first started with WoW, and think that any game not a clone of WoW is doomed to failure. The problem with both of these is they are both wrong. The former is blind to their own fanboyism and the latter is blind to the last 6 years of failed or partially failed who have gone FTP of all the WoW clones.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
You guys are critiquing the bad points of a system that has not been fully disclosed, and you somehow think you know the facts of what is good or bad about it. God the only thing we know about WvWvW is the few bits of information we have got through interviews, ANet hasn’t even did a blog post on it yet. In fact the only people that know the full details about WvWvW and even how server transferees fit into that scenario is ANet.
I am even going to say the only criticism that can be applied to WvWvW right now is "I do not like the idea of it". Because that is it that we know, let me repeat this again we do not know the full facts of WvWvW yet. So how in name of everything good and holy are you discussing the bad points of something you do know enough about to fill a thimble.
Ah to hell with it, I am going to join in and start talking about the bad points of things that have not been full revealed yet. You know I really do not like the PVP in Blizzard’ Titan, I just cannot believe they are doing that there is no way they are going to make that balanced. /slit wrist
I'm actually talking about the information that HAS been released, and relating it to the information we still do not know yet. Its a 3 faction system. Its a roundrobin tournament style of gameplay. We know why 3 faction systems are great, but in a system that only allows for 1 winner, with no persistent world because it gets reset every week, I just don't think a 3 faction system is really all that necessary.
Again I didn't say it won't be fun. I didn't even say I wouldn't play it. People complain all the time on other games over features they have much less information on. I don't see why if I have a few valid concerns I can't at least bring it up and talk about it.
The rules are simple for unreleased games. If you want to nail SWTOR, go right a head. If you don't like Archeage or GW2, keep quiet.
Read these
http://www.massiveonlinegamer.com/pr...wrap-up-part-1
http://www.massiveonlinegamer.com/pr...wrap-up-part-2
This is not a game.
Skill based as in, the balance is that of an FPS, not twitch based. You cannot aim single target skills in GW2. It will be skill based because the playing fields are evened, positioning will be paramount, and you can use your roll skill wisely to avoid dmg. with no auto-attacks comming at you from enemies instantly hitting you.
No you couldn't, once you logged off somebody came and took that keep back. In GW2 you will take the keep and keep it if people stay on and do so, and when you win or lose you will start over again in a week, however it will be persistent for a week. What is the gripe? Don't give me some bull about keeping a keep for over a week, because in WAR that never happened...
You see, you are presenting a bit of a closed mindedness in this situation. If you go and read some of the hands ons, some of them describe the grouping experiences as close to P&P adventures. I highly disagree that GW2 design choice is appealing to the instant gratification generation, in fact that's what WoW, Rift, and other games of the sort are doing. Now are you supposed to have fun as soon as you log into a game? Of course, that's what I do with my single player games, but that does not mean they are giving you everything and making it easy. No that is far from the truth..
In fact, if you go look at the hands ons from everyone that has touched it, they say that grouping is very strong in this game. You say that everyone can't do everything.. Well they can't.. Everyone can't do everything that every other class can do the same way. Some classes are better in the way they control, some classes are better in their durability, some classes are better in their supporting, but they all have their ways of doing these things. Actually, this approach is much more realistic than the stuck in a box holy trinity you assume this hard role system. You do things as a group of heroes really would to things. Okay, there's a bunch of minions, let us destroy them, oh no someone just came in and is wailing on my partner, you hop in between them and let's say enact an impassible wall to get your partner to safety. Then, you get out the way as your partners help dispatch of the guy. Everyone, is doing their part, there is no dedicated healer keeping people up, everyone is making sure they have good positioning and they are taking care of each other through their actions.
All heals that are in the game are proximity based, so that really takes coordination to get your group to actually get in the proximity of it, support skills are proximity based, absorption skills so on and so forth. Hey I just put down the firewall, engineer drag them through it! Guardian put down your impassible wall so he's stuck in the firewall! Now ranger fire your arrows through and get bonus fire dmg! This system is highly group oriented. I just think you are looking at it from the wrong light. We aren't given a small constricted box, we are given a playground. Change your weapons around get new skills, select your utility skills, customize your traits to take on different effects with your skills, switch between 2 weapon sets during combat to do different things on the fly. I really don't see this applying a gimme gimme system for the ones with ADD, this is a weaving set for groups, this system is going to involve much more coordination than your simple, taunt okay got aggro on me, dps stand behind him watch out for cleave, and healer just keep that bar up system.
Do you know why ANet choose to make a 3 faction system? Do you know what elements they are putting into WvWvW to support the 3 faction system? Do you know how the winner of WvWvW is decided? Do you absolutely know it will only last for a week, I have heard it could be two weeks, but who knows it might end up being 3 weeks, in the end the fact is we do not! Do you know every single detail about the WvWvW system to make an educated decision that a 3 faction system is not needed, or you going with the force here? Do you know how the 5 maps are exactly setup so you know what kind of system the design supports? Do you know what the effects will be for the side that wins in WvWvW or what happened if anything to the sides that lose? Do you know if they switch to a two faction system if it would have any negative affects concerning how the maps are designed? Do you know how the system is exactly setup to so everyone no matter the level can help their world, in other words could you give a 1000 word speech and give example on how a level 1, level 10, level 20 and so on can effect WvWvW? Do you know if there will be a reset window after the winner is decided and the world match up changes, or can we access the 5 maps at anytime no matter what?
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. If not I can come back with another post and give you another 50 questions.
But the server didn't automatically take the keep back. WAR was just an example of persistent changes. Had no one contested it, you would have kept the keep, you could have for more than a week.
In Fallen Earth, contested towns were kept for weeks at a time, (or sometimes only a day or two) sometimes with battles for towns lasting hours. Just turning a town took 4 - 6 hours of full group involvement, and that was just to remove control to neutral, then regain control under your faction. That doesn't even count for putting in guards and merchants. 2 people could contest that town, but it would take days for just 2 people to take a contested area, in comparison to a full group of 10+ people... and if we were around when another group was trying to take it, a fight would break out. Many times you'd have multiple groups trying to take it for their faction at the same time.
WAR was just an example. I think you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't like it.
There is no issue with this and 3 faction system. It applies an unpredictability to the PvP. It applies a balance all the way from the very beginning. The 3 faction system was awesome, and it fits with this. The winner will go on to face other servers coming off of wins. We don't know how zerg mentallity servers will play out against smaller more coordinated servers yet, but the answer to your question is simple. If a server with lower pop faces a much larger server because it has a high win ration, and they fail to win. Then, ummm they face other servers next week who are better matched. We don't know the specifics of the matchmaking so we can't delve much into that right now, but the way it is set up is it will be constantly changing so balance will be fine... Also, they have already said they are working on restrictions for server changing with WvW specifically in mind..
Sorry, but your questions don't mean anything to me. You are taking one piece of the entire thread that you want to nitpick me on, like thats somehow helpful in any way, but truly my concerns are stated very simply for you to read and reread if you want. This is my perception and my questions regarding it. If you can clarify any of these for me RIGHT NOW, then lets this thread die today. If you want to push more questions my way and add to more blatant conjecture then I can oblige, but I'm basing my perception off of information I've read.
You are complaining about my posts in particular, but read those replying to me. They are the ones talking about matching up weak worlds together, they are talking about week long stints of combat, they are the ones talking about single players attacking supply lines and players scaling and leveling all the way up in W v W v W. If you want to get me to stop posting my issues with these systems that the very same proponents for the game are using to convince me otherwise with, then you should talk to the people who are "pro" non-persistent W v W v W. Otherwise, if you aren't going to provide any pertinent feedback in this discussion then I don't think theres much else you and I have to talk about.
I can accept that. I'll still be somewhat skeptical about it, but I can accept a wait and see mentality.
While I do agree that the 3 faction system does provide some sense of unpredictability, it was more in line with providing balance for 2 factions that were outmatched. But if 3 factions are all matched evenly, then it will just be a 3 faction free for all. If they somehow aren't matched evenly then it doesn't matter how well coordinated 2 factions together are, only one will win and I fear cooperation would suffer because of it. Thats just one reason why persistent PvP is ideal to me, because if you are always facing the same sides, guilds, etc. you get to know when you need to bring extra manpower, or when a temporary alliance with another faction would be necessary. It doesn't mean I don't like things like Arena matches, its more of a preference than anything.
What I'm trying to say, and what you can't wrap your head around.. Sorry for the frustration. Is that this is still persistent and lasting till there is a winner. In a real war, there isn't just a constant tussle going on forever with no victors. No, in almost all cases somebody loses, and then it's on to the next. This is represented here, you can take your keeps and hold them throughout the week or however long the matches will last, and then when you dispose of your enemies you go on to the next.
The reason I'm getting frustrated here, is because your sitting here knit picking on an issue that is hardly never done. You know that in WAR you did not defend one single keep for over a week, most of the time when you went to sleep it would get taken back. That is what I'm trying to say, you are just sitting here knit picking on little details that don't matter, it's like you're griping just to gripe. What?!?! I can't hold a keep for over a week?! That's stupid! You ever played for over a week straight with no sleep?
I started playing MMORPGS with DAoC, I understand how the industry has changed, but I don't see here how you can say Guild Wars 2 is a game for those who want Instant gradification. and they are not removing player interaction they are making so I dont have to sit around and look for a tank or a healer for an hour just to play my high level content. Guild Wars 2 gets you to max fast, so you cna enjoy your time playing but its hardly the end.
I have been playing Guild Wars off and on for about 5 years, the lore of the game and the story it tells are grand and very epic in scale. People care about this lore just like any other game. and when a game has a rich established lore People care when it is violated. You get to max level in Guild Wars in under a day, (if you start from factions) but please getting max is not even rewarding...because you know as a player that your story is just starting. With Guild War it is about skill and the skills you bring to your party, you gear and weapons will always have the max stats on them becuase max wepons are easy to find. its the content that makes the game hard and fun and challenging , not the fact that I need to run this instance 20 times just to get my last piece of armor so i can go on to the next level of instancing.
I LOVE TO INVEST IN MY GAMING, and you know what ,a dynamic world that has the ability to make a zone different every time I walk though it makes me feel as if the world changes day to day as it has the ability to in real life, CAN I PLAY IN AN EVER CHANGING WORLD, yes. for years and years, OHH YEAH
You are basing this off of other games you have played, but you don't even know hoe GW2 PvP is. The skill level represented in GW2 is something we haven't seen in MMO's, I've already quoted it once that a dev spoke of one dev taking out 9 other players simply cause he was much better. If a very good group oriented server gets matched with a server that was just mindlessly zerging for its wins, there is a good possibility that they could still win. You're gonna get matched by your strength and that is all that matters, and if 3 servers are evenly matched it doesn't really matter the 3 faction system is there for maybe when this server has more people that log off at this time, or maybe this one comes out in force at a different time. It is so that there will always be a constant threat for all servers and it won't be just a war of times between 2 servers.
Well if you noticed I did not say you in my initial comment, I said you guys. In my opinion you all are acting like a bunch of fools, arguing over something you do not know anything about, and then acting like you have enough information to actually make an educated decision. Has the thought ever occurred to any of you that what we know right now might not even be the official blog release when it happens? WvWvW might not have 5 maps, it might last for a month, and it might have purple rainbows flying out of its orifices. Take a look at how much the attribute system, or the Necromancer, or the Elementalist has changes since they were announced. And then think for a second how much a system that has never been official announced might change before they reveal it.
But you people are so right let’s keep discussing the finer points of WvWvW with the absolutely stunning little information we have. Who cares about the fact that we really do not know anything about it, and what we know might not even be in the official reveal.
I could see the merit of this conversation if it was something officially revealed like the underwater combat and the developers are looking for feedback. But this has not been revealed yet, only ANet knows all the facts about WvWvW. But cares about facts or information lets continue to argue like ignorant fools.
I think thats a bad analogy, because in a real war, you keep what you win. In GW2 you keep the stat that you win, but you don't keep the areas, you don't keep the materials. You keep a number. Stop thinking about WAR. Yes you CAN own a keep for over a week, if you wanted to. Thats the thing, is its your CHOICE. Again, reread my experience in Fallen Earth. Look up the battles in Darkfall. Hell, even look at contested zones in DCUO. These are in the open world and persistent. If you want to you can keep these indefinitely if you WANT.
What you are describing is a basketball game. You play until the clock runs out, the one with the most points wins the game. Tomorrow you play another game against a different team and the same thing happens. Every day you play a different basketball game and at the end of the day the game is over and the next day it resets. You have no points, they have no points.
What I'm describing is ...well.... think of it like a game of monopoly. Everyone playing lands somewhere and buys land, that land is yours and you keep it for however long until something happens to where you can no long pay for it (or someone else buys it). No matter how many times people pass over that land, its yours as long as you have the money to run it.
You can build on that land, you can keep that land for 2 days, or 2 weeks as long as Monopoly is still being played. That land is yours. One day someone might be wealthy enough, or you'll be in debt enough where you might lose that land. It might be temporarily, or it might be indefinitely, but its persistent and doesn't go away no matter how much time passes. There is not "winner by default" because the clock ran down to zero. Its take control, keep control, and benefit.
Does that make sense as to what I'm saying?
I understand what you are saying, but even a game of monoply ends with a winner. You see, GW2 is not a sandbox game, so to bring Darkfall into this just doesn't work. Sandbox is about players driving all of the content, and I enjoy those type of games too, but I also enjoy pure competition with a goal and that is to win. GW2, is playing off the spirit of competition here. You see, you are looking at it in the wrong light still, when I said when you defeat your enemies and move on to the next I understand you keep what you have taken. But the way I'm looking at it, is once you've beaten your enemies here, you are now on conquest in a different land to take over. You see? But, it also can be likened to a basketball game, albeit smaller scale battleground fights like in WAR or Rift, or even WoW are more alike, since this match can last for a week or more.
You see, a lot of people like competition with an ending, and they like to win. This is what this system is playing off of, it won't just be constant juggling forever with the same old people, will you meet that server again? Sure its highly probable, but you will wage a war for a week or more and there will be a victor determined, and then you will go on to meet new competition. I like it this way, because you are constantly testing your server against newer competition who may bring different strategies to the table.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Fallen Earth is a TPS, Darkfall uses FPS/TPS gameplay as well, DCUO is very skill based, TERA requires FPS skills as well. GW2s combat is middle ground between basic WoW gameplay and maybe TERA or DCUO. Some skills lock to enemies, some skills require area positioning or player positioning. Likewise in TERA or DCUO where blocking, dodging and skill combinations matter (as well as environmental variables).
I don't have a problem with GW2s skills (as I played GW1) and how they do their card based bar, nor do I have a problem with the way combat plays out (minus the very flashy animations for some moves). I can only base my opinions on what I've seen just as you are basing yours on what you've seen.
Ok, that was a good article, thanks for the links Zeroxin. I actually liked what the author had to say, and I do feel a bit more positive about the game. Two concerns I do have are deal with underwater/water movement and the raising the fallen character. I have a hard time with ignoring "normal" movement while in water as someone who until injuries spent a lot of time over the past five decades in the water. Don't get me wrong it isn't a deal breaker for me as a gamer, but it is something that does irk me a little.
On the second concern, I am not sure how I feel about how dying/defeated and the mechanics for retoring/raising a fallen characte work. I like a risk/reward system where when you screw up you screw up and have to put some effort into recovering. That's just me, I know many don't feel that way. So it is a concern.
I'd love to see more info on crafting, profession skills and such. Getting more info on that might twitch me over from just sitting on the fence and watching to playing. Gotta love their offices btw, I live not to far from that area so I'm familiar with that style of building design that the author of the article talked about. It is a nice envirement to work in.