I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
I can't really picture how things could get ugly, outside of 'Grrr, leave!' (person who doesn't want to leave adds new person to ignore list)
That's... eh. Not like you can force somebody out of an event. I guess worst case scenario, somebody who is really elitist and only wants to be team up with the most elite people will stop doing dynamic events and quit subscribing to GW2.
... oh wait.
... but seriously. No matter what kind of game design there is, somebody isn't going to like it. That's just the nature of game design. (shrug) Don't see how it can 'get really ugly' though.
I don't need to stop and talk to any guys around me, because for one, trying to coordinate with guy 1 - 4 would likely be more challenging than the quest, and for B, my time is limited on how long I have to complete something, so spending some time getting together and coordinating randomly doesn't sound like something high on the list. At least, thats how I see it.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
<childish, provocative and highly speculative banner about your favorite game goes here>
I don't need to stop and talk to any guys around me, because for one, trying to coordinate with guy 1 - 4 would likely be more challenging than the quest, and for B, my time is limited on how long I have to complete something, so spending some time getting together and coordinating randomly doesn't sound like something high on the list. At least, thats how I see it.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This issue is specifically addressed. They talk of these groups of 5-10 people who just form up while playing and go from event to event. How you'll see someone and say to your friend, "hey, that guy's been following us for a while and he seems cool, let's talk to him." Or people who started out just thinking they were going to solo and really not having any intention of teaming up just being drawn into playing with others because the game just simply gives you no reason not to.
Seriously, it's very long but it's well worth a look if you haven't seen it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
This issue is specifically addressed. They talk of these groups of 5-10 people who just form up while playing and go from event to event. How you'll see someone and say to your friend, "hey, that guy's been following us for a while and he seems cool, let's talk to him." Or people who started out just thinking they were going to solo and really not having any intention of teaming up just being drawn into playing with others because the game just simply gives you no reason not to.
Seriously, it's very long but it's well worth a look if you haven't seen it.
thx for the link, sat thro it instead of watching x-men first class!
I don't need to stop and talk to any guys around me, because for one, trying to coordinate with guy 1 - 4 would likely be more challenging than the quest, and for B, my time is limited on how long I have to complete something, so spending some time getting together and coordinating randomly doesn't sound like something high on the list. At least, thats how I see it.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
I think people are naturally social, when you remove conflict. Look at how pvers VASTLY outnumber pvpers, how faction based pvp games rule over pure free for all.
We will naturally group with like minded others when barriers are removed.
Anyone that wants a fixed group in open world levelling will just be out of luck. Though there are exploration chains that will probably be on the path less followed.
No game is perfect for everyone but I will be talking to anyone that helps me out, i'll be picking supportive traits and skills. Maybe i'll make a name for myself
I'm sorry, guys 1-4? I don't see any sort of game design that is going to make those people interesting to chat with. It's not like with some other type of content in Not-GW2, the MMORPG, suddenly it'll be.
MW "Hey guys, we're going to do this totally awesome thing."
Guy 1 "Indubitably. I dare say we're going to have a smashing time"
Guy 2 "Why, having suddenly been granted an inordinate amount of intelligence, I do believe I can come up with a clever plan to deal with this situation"
Guy 3 "I would never think to denigrate you, and would be delighted to have you share your wisdom with us.
MW "We should hurry, because did I forget to mention we're doing something awesome that isn't an event?"
Guy 1 "Absolutely! This certainly is wonderful. I really am feeling involved in this world, and it's stopping me from asking dumb questions."
Guy 2 "Look! A sparrow sitting on that tree! I certainly appreciate that the game designers are making such a wonderful world for me to practice my amazing and previously unfound observation skills upon."
Guy 4 "Haha. That makes me chuckle, because I too find simple delight in the pleasures of exploration."
My dear Meowhead,
That was a jest of unfathomable proportions, and the inherent jocularity was delightful on a scale that could only be understood by those who are both intellectually fabulous and, simultaneously, are frequently possessed by rudimentary etiquette that surpasses those who are 60%+ Killer and not enough Socializer. Also, sparrows.
Me: "We should hurry, or they'll burn down the town"
Guy 1 "Where are you?"
Guy 2 "I don't see centaurs"
Guy 4 "LOL"
I'm sorry, guys 1-4? I don't see any sort of game design that is going to make those people interesting to chat with. It's not like with some other type of content in Not-GW2, the MMORPG, suddenly it'll be.
MW "Hey guys, we're going to do this totally awesome thing."
Guy 1 "Indubitably. I dare say we're going to have a smashing time"
Guy 2 "Why, having suddenly been granted an inordinate amount of intelligence, I do believe I can come up with a clever plan to deal with this situation"
Guy 3 "I would never think to denigrate you, and would be delighted to have you share your wisdom with us.
MW "We should hurry, because did I forget to mention we're doing something awesome that isn't an event?"
Guy 1 "Absolutely! This certainly is wonderful. I really am feeling involved in this world, and it's stopping me from asking dumb questions."
Guy 2 "Look! A sparrow sitting on that tree! I certainly appreciate that the game designers are making such a wonderful world for me to practice my amazing and previously unfound observation skills upon."
Guy 4 "Haha. That makes me chuckle, because I too find simple delight in the pleasures of exploration."
Sorry. Guys 1-4 are twits. MMORPGs are full of twits. No content is going to make people who can't socialize properly in one way suddenly magically fun to be with. Even back in Asheron's Call, I found most people to be intolerable, even if I was forced to talk with them, because they couldn't converse their way out of a wet paper bag.
Well, you could say there is a rule of "I'm better than the other guy" when playing mmos. Many think that and well, hard to blame them seeing as they don't know who is behind other PC it is better to think they are better instead of worse.
I don't need to stop and talk to any guys around me, because for one, trying to coordinate with guy 1 - 4 would likely be more challenging than the quest, and for B, my time is limited on how long I have to complete something, so spending some time getting together and coordinating randomly doesn't sound like something high on the list. At least, thats how I see it.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
Eh, not really an old quest mentality at all, you can either pass or fail a dynamic event, if you win you get a better reward than when you lose. It doesn't matter if the centaurs take the town, if they do... you lost, simple as that. Win/lose, Pass/Fail, theres nothing else, no crazy third thing. If you want the best reward you have to win.
With this system, people can come in to make something tougher and thereby make you fail an event, thereby costing you a reward. Simple as that.
I don't need to stop and talk to any guys around me, because for one, trying to coordinate with guy 1 - 4 would likely be more challenging than the quest, and for B, my time is limited on how long I have to complete something, so spending some time getting together and coordinating randomly doesn't sound like something high on the list. At least, thats how I see it.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
Eh, not really an old quest mentality at all, you can either pass or fail a dynamic event, if you win you get a better reward than when you lose. It doesn't matter if the centaurs take the town, if they do... you lost, simple as that. Win/lose, Pass/Fail, theres nothing else, no crazy third thing. If you want the best reward you have to win.
With this system, people can come in to make something tougher and thereby make you fail an event, thereby costing you a reward. Simple as that.
If people come in then nothing happens.
If people come in and start helping out then the even gets harder. But the even only gets harder when people are helping out.
They cancel each other out. The event isn't harder for you, it's harder for you and the people that started helping you. If the people leave then the event scales back down.
I don't need to stop and talk to any guys around me, because for one, trying to coordinate with guy 1 - 4 would likely be more challenging than the quest, and for B, my time is limited on how long I have to complete something, so spending some time getting together and coordinating randomly doesn't sound like something high on the list. At least, thats how I see it.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
Eh, not really an old quest mentality at all, you can either pass or fail a dynamic event, if you win you get a better reward than when you lose. It doesn't matter if the centaurs take the town, if they do... you lost, simple as that. Win/lose, Pass/Fail, theres nothing else, no crazy third thing. If you want the best reward you have to win.
With this system, people can come in to make something tougher and thereby make you fail an event, thereby costing you a reward. Simple as that.
If people come in then nothing happens.
If people come in and start helping out then the even gets harder. But the even only gets harder when people are helping out.
They cancel each other out. The event isn't harder for you, it's harder for you and the people that started helping you. If the people leave then the event scales back down.
Simple as that.
Bad players "helping" won't make anything easier. I guess if you want to pretend all players are equal thats fine, but if you've ever played an MMO before you'd know players aren't equal at all.
Then again, if events are simply whack a mole then you might be right, it won't matter how bad a player is that joins.
I don't need to stop and talk to any guys around me, because for one, trying to coordinate with guy 1 - 4 would likely be more challenging than the quest, and for B, my time is limited on how long I have to complete something, so spending some time getting together and coordinating randomly doesn't sound like something high on the list. At least, thats how I see it.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Which leads to another possibilty - what if things turn out to be exactly the other way round?
People may group and socialize - and then, experienced groups will NOT want to have guy 1-4 automaticly grouped with them or anywhere near their event, for that matter. They'll tell them to "GTFO our event, noobs". And if they refuse to go somewhere else, things may get really ugly on a regular basis.
Will dynamic events really be more cooperative? Just a thought.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
Eh, not really an old quest mentality at all, you can either pass or fail a dynamic event, if you win you get a better reward than when you lose. It doesn't matter if the centaurs take the town, if they do... you lost, simple as that. Win/lose, Pass/Fail, theres nothing else, no crazy third thing. If you want the best reward you have to win.
With this system, people can come in to make something tougher and thereby make you fail an event, thereby costing you a reward. Simple as that.
smaller reward is still reward
And if they lose, they just get different even in chain.
This is not win/loss situation. In case of winning you get for example 100% of reward, in case of losing maybe 80%. We will have to see how they do it.
Playing a bit of rift showed me that dynamic events make people work together, but it doesnt make them socialising. Where oldfashioned group quests atleast require people to communicate... Which often is the start of a social relationship. How will GW2 make people talk with eachother during these dynamic events?
This was talked about before and I think will be a glaring problem in Gw2..
Rift is the perfect example of what I think GW2 DE's will be like..
people will do their part till the event is over,disband,and move on their way without uttering a word.
MMO's are meant to be social and yet companies make them in such a way where people can choose(and usually do) to be anti social.
Playing a bit of rift showed me that dynamic events make people work together, but it doesnt make them socialising. Where oldfashioned group quests atleast require people to communicate... Which often is the start of a social relationship. How will GW2 make people talk with eachother during these dynamic events?
This was talked about before and I think will be a glaring problem in Gw2..
Rift is the perfect example of what I think GW2 DE's will be like..
people will do their part till the event is over,disband,and move on their way.
It'll feel like a solo rpg.
It's not like your average Fex-Ex quest filled MMO creates more of a community.
If anything DE's will make it easier for you and your guildies/friends to go and level together since
Playing a bit of rift showed me that dynamic events make people work together, but it doesnt make them socialising. Where oldfashioned group quests atleast require people to communicate... Which often is the start of a social relationship. How will GW2 make people talk with eachother during these dynamic events?
This was talked about before and I think will be a glaring problem in Gw2..
Rift is the perfect example of what I think GW2 DE's will be like..
people will do their part till the event is over,disband,and move on their way.
It'll feel like a solo rpg.
It's not like your average Fex-Ex quest filled MMO creates more of a community.
If anything DE's will make it easier for you and your guildies/friends to go and level together since
a)you can join in at any given time
b)They aren't tiered/phased
True..
I think the last game I played where there was a true community feel was DAOC,which was mostly brought on by RvR.Hopefully GW2's WvW brings the same results.
Playing a bit of rift showed me that dynamic events make people work together, but it doesnt make them socialising. Where oldfashioned group quests atleast require people to communicate... Which often is the start of a social relationship. How will GW2 make people talk with eachother during these dynamic events?
This was talked about before and I think will be a glaring problem in Gw2..
Rift is the perfect example of what I think GW2 DE's will be like..
people will do their part till the event is over,disband,and move on their way.
It'll feel like a solo rpg.
It's not like your average Fex-Ex quest filled MMO creates more of a community.
If anything DE's will make it easier for you and your guildies/friends to go and level together since
a)you can join in at any given time
b)They aren't tiered/phased
True..
I think the last game I played where there was a true community feel was DAOC,which was mostly brought on by RvR.Hopefully GW2's WvW brings the same results.
Despite everything I played WAR for about 8 months, and I did feel a very strong sense of community there, so much that even to this day my guild keeps in contant with 4-5 other guilds with which we used to play together and agaisnt in WAR.
And when we move to a game, we like to know that we are together, in case of GW2 we will definitely be moving together, like we kinda did in Aion(altho most ppl quit due to steep lvling curve) knowing that there will be 3 more huge guilds in my server that are very familiar to me, and my other guildies, is just awesome tbh.
For example: They have missions in the dynamic events which help make the event easier without being too direct about how to do. In the Shatterer battle, for one, you can make the battle easier by repairing the mortar guns, but for that you have to talk to people to assemble a team to go away froom the Shatterer, some players will need to do this, others will need to keep fighting him. This team will go and get the materials necessary and repair the mortars, which will then make the Shatterer fight easier.
I'm sure there are many examples of this where communication about elements which will make a dynamic event easier will get people talking.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
Eh, not really an old quest mentality at all, you can either pass or fail a dynamic event, if you win you get a better reward than when you lose. It doesn't matter if the centaurs take the town, if they do... you lost, simple as that. Win/lose, Pass/Fail, theres nothing else, no crazy third thing. If you want the best reward you have to win.
With this system, people can come in to make something tougher and thereby make you fail an event, thereby costing you a reward. Simple as that.
Thats because everything ingame needs to give you a reward or else it is complete junk right?
Dynamic events are there to create EVENTS in the world, if you succeed in repelling centaurs, one chain happens, if you fail, another chain happens. I wouldn't care less if there isn't reward, as long as the events are fun to play out, regarding cooperations to succeed.
If anyone ever realise, reward ares for 3 types of people
Materialistic people, "if there ain't a reward, I ain't doing it"
People with no sense of progression of direction, "if I get a reward, I should be doing something right.....right?"
The only way to play a game is to beat the bad guys, get their loot, and move on. "I have to win.....at all cost.....for the gear that is going to drop"
You are basing your impression of Dynamic events on Rift, where rifts are one off event that will only reward you once you seal the rift, its different in GW2, one example the devs talked about is the ascalong ghost city. Humans have built defences around the city, but now the vengeful ghost are destroying them, your goal is to protect the defences so that, the defences can help with your fight against the ghost. If you fail, you simply going to have to combat the ghost without the defences. One major event spawns off multiple smaller chain of events, failing does NOT break the chain, it simply splits off into another direction.
A game is about having fun, not about the virtual reward it gives you.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
It's quite apparent that you're looking at this from a wrong angle. GW2 isn't Rift. It's not WoW. It's GW2. How a game develops on the social aspects all depends on how WE play the game. ArenaNet is giving us EVERYTHING we need to make this game a social experience. But it's up to us to do it. ArenaNet is not going to force us to play one way. So if most of the community likes just playing together and not really socializing, then that's how it's going to be. Because that's how the community approaches the game.
As the social aspect develops while we play, most of the questions about it will be answered.
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
Eh, not really an old quest mentality at all, you can either pass or fail a dynamic event, if you win you get a better reward than when you lose. It doesn't matter if the centaurs take the town, if they do... you lost, simple as that. Win/lose, Pass/Fail, theres nothing else, no crazy third thing. If you want the best reward you have to win.
With this system, people can come in to make something tougher and thereby make you fail an event, thereby costing you a reward. Simple as that.
Thats because everything ingame needs to give you a reward or else it is complete junk right?
Dynamic events are there to create EVENTS in the world, if you succeed in repelling centaurs, one chain happens, if you fail, another chain happens. I wouldn't care less if there isn't reward, as long as the events are fun to play out, regarding cooperations to succeed.
If anyone ever realise, reward ares for 3 types of people
Materialistic people, "if there ain't a reward, I ain't doing it"
People with no sense of progression of direction, "if I get a reward, I should be doing something right.....right?"
The only way to play a game is to beat the bad guys, get their loot, and move on. "I have to win.....at all cost.....for the gear that is going to drop"
You are basing your impression of Dynamic events on Rift, where rifts are one off event that will only reward you once you seal the rift, its different in GW2, one example the devs talked about is the ascalong ghost city. Humans have built defences around the city, but now the vengeful ghost are destroying them, your goal is to protect the defences so that, the defences can help with your fight against the ghost. If you fail, you simply going to have to combat the ghost without the defences. One major event spawns off multiple smaller chain of events, failing does NOT break the chain, it simply splits off into another direction.
A game is about having fun, not about the virtual reward it gives you.
LOL no I'm basing these events on what they are. You pass or fail the event. Right? You get rewards based on this, right?
If you like losing, great, more power to you, but when I play games I measure my skill on success. If you want to play games to lose thats great, as long as there are winners there needs to be losers, but I don't get to the end of a game, or win at PvP because I'm looking to lose.
Not everything has to be a reward, if you just want to see the event chain then you can do that, if seeing the chain is in some way a reward. Not everyone wants to do something to lose at it though. I like to play games for fun... like Global Agenda, where my skill and winning doesn't really net me any kind of progression, loot, or reward other than my stats for winning. I don't like to lose matches, I like to win them. Even when I do lose its alright if I at least show promising stats. In a DE playing for fun is one thing, but losing a DE due to incompetence instead of completing it successfully because you are strong enough and able is another.
This is one of the reasons I have to stay so polar on GW2, so many people think this game is offering something its not. Dynamic events aren't some amazing new way about doing everything. They are simply chains of regular quests with two simple outcomes, and rewards based on those outcomes. Its a casual game, so it allows for scaling and rewards for everyone, but thats not to say players want to lose all the time just to "experience" it.
Thats because everything ingame needs to give you a reward or else it is complete junk right?
Dynamic events are there to create EVENTS in the world, if you succeed in repelling centaurs, one chain happens, if you fail, another chain happens. I wouldn't care less if there isn't reward, as long as the events are fun to play out, regarding cooperations to succeed.
If anyone ever realise, reward ares for 3 types of people
Materialistic people, "if there ain't a reward, I ain't doing it"
People with no sense of progression of direction, "if I get a reward, I should be doing something right.....right?"
The only way to play a game is to beat the bad guys, get their loot, and move on. "I have to win.....at all cost.....for the gear that is going to drop"
You are basing your impression of Dynamic events on Rift, where rifts are one off event that will only reward you once you seal the rift, its different in GW2, one example the devs talked about is the ascalong ghost city. Humans have built defences around the city, but now the vengeful ghost are destroying them, your goal is to protect the defences so that, the defences can help with your fight against the ghost. If you fail, you simply going to have to combat the ghost without the defences. One major event spawns off multiple smaller chain of events, failing does NOT break the chain, it simply splits off into another direction.
A game is about having fun, not about the virtual reward it gives you.
Additionally, something I believe we do not know is if you can get a gold reward and still fail an event. What information has been given so far would seem to indicate that if you are there from beginning to end of an event, participating, damaging, rezzing, taking on seconary objectives, etc. you will get gold contribution, period. It would stand to reason, therefore, that even if the event ultimately fails (due to players being outnumbered, for example), you would still get gold contribution right before the "fail event" begins and you continue on in the event chain.
The reason this makes sense is because it jives with ANet's desire never to make players dread the appearance of others. If it were never possible to score a gold contribution reward on event failure, regardless of the level of participation, this sort of resentment would surely grow, because the end result would be that some events would be more profitable than others, and ANet doesn't want people to see things that way.
Therefore, if additional people do show up who make the event scale up (somehow, which means they are at the very least contributing somewhat to the progression of the event, for if they were uselessly harrassing the mobs the event wouldn't register their contribution and scale up accordingly), and further, make the event scale up in such a way that those who are carrying the lion's share of the work are subsequently unable to successfully complete the event, all one has to do is keep contributing, because even if you fail you will STILL get gold contribution, AND additional content in the form of the "fail event" chain branch.
In short, if anyone dreads the appearance of additional players to the Dynamic Event party, they have either misunderstood the way rewards are doled out (i.e. a single guild hoping to monopolize the rewards, not realizing that there is not a finite amount that they have to share, nor a reduced amount of reward for "failure" if you are giving it your all), or ANet's purposes in designing the events entirely (that if you want to shut people out of the content you are doing, the instanced dungeons are thataway).
For example: They have missions in the dynamic events which help make the event easier without being too direct about how to do. In the Shatterer battle, for one, you can make the battle easier by repairing the mortar guns, but for that you have to talk to people to assemble a team to go away froom the Shatterer, some players will need to do this, others will need to keep fighting him. This team will go and get the materials necessary and repair the mortars, which will then make the Shatterer fight easier.
I'm sure there are many examples of this where communication about elements which will make a dynamic event easier will get people talking.
I think people are assuming that somehow Dynamic Events are all about the "GO GO GO COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT" which won't ever allow a moment's rest to stop and look at the chat window, or, worse, TYPE in it. As you note, there are less actiony roles that can be taken in pursuit of completing the event, such that strategy can be discussed, etc.
In old-school MMOs I do not believe a lot of chatter occurred during combat, either (at least if I compare it to the MUDs I played); the socializing takes place during the downtime, while casters meditate or eat/drink to restore mana, etc. or while parties change locations for better spawns, or move on to the next mob in the dungeon, etc. Well, Dynamic Events have downtime, too, between chaining events, or as the party roams looking for active events, etc.
I remember doing PQs in WAR with a party that assembled in a rag-tag fashion during one chapter or another, and at the end, we'd ask if anyone wanted to move on, or repeat the PQ until everyone had maxed out their influence for that chapter, and then roam looking for the next, and then the next. I am not a particularly social player, and furthermore preferred to play in a closed group with my husband before we were living together, so I resisted Open Groups more often than not, and we STILL managed to be plenty social in the first few months of WAR. This was only impacted by the population drop as time went on.
With GW2 scaling (provided it works as planned, of course), I don't see this developing into a real issue.
Playing a bit of rift showed me that dynamic events make people work together, but it doesnt make them socialising. Where oldfashioned group quests atleast require people to communicate... Which often is the start of a social relationship. How will GW2 make people talk with eachother during these dynamic events?
This was talked about before and I think will be a glaring problem in Gw2..
Rift is the perfect example of what I think GW2 DE's will be like..
people will do their part till the event is over,disband,and move on their way.
It'll feel like a solo rpg.
It's not like your average Fex-Ex quest filled MMO creates more of a community.
If anything DE's will make it easier for you and your guildies/friends to go and level together since
a)you can join in at any given time
b)They aren't tiered/phased
True..
I think the last game I played where there was a true community feel was DAOC,which was mostly brought on by RvR.Hopefully GW2's WvW brings the same results.
Despite everything I played WAR for about 8 months, and I did feel a very strong sense of community there, so much that even to this day my guild keeps in contant with 4-5 other guilds with which we used to play together and agaisnt in WAR.
And when we move to a game, we like to know that we are together, in case of GW2 we will definitely be moving together, like we kinda did in Aion(altho most ppl quit due to steep lvling curve) knowing that there will be 3 more huge guilds in my server that are very familiar to me, and my other guildies, is just awesome tbh.
Joining guilds is a good way to combat the anti social trend in mmo's these days.alot of times though,there will be pugs and that's where I can see the anti socialising take place.Just like Rifts rift events. But we shall see.
Its simple. If people feel like they need socializing they will start speaking in chat, if they just want to play the game they will play it in silence. I don't care..
Comments
I can't really picture how things could get ugly, outside of 'Grrr, leave!' (person who doesn't want to leave adds new person to ignore list)
That's... eh. Not like you can force somebody out of an event. I guess worst case scenario, somebody who is really elitist and only wants to be team up with the most elite people will stop doing dynamic events and quit subscribing to GW2.
... oh wait.
... but seriously. No matter what kind of game design there is, somebody isn't going to like it. That's just the nature of game design. (shrug) Don't see how it can 'get really ugly' though.
Why wouldn't you want to share an event with other players? The developers have repeatedly stated that they're trying to make other players a welcome sight. Other players won't be able to killsteal or prevent you from pushing the event into its next phase.
<childish, provocative and highly speculative banner about your favorite game goes here>
Well, the only thing I could think of is, the more players, the tougher it is, and the tougher it is, the less chance there is of completing it.
If you have a group of people doing an event and they are winning, and then you have 3 guys who have no idea what they are doing that essentially just make the quest tougher, it could be the difference by getting a winners award or a losers award.
Have the people in this thread watched this video?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013691/Designing-Guild-Wars-2-Dynamic
This issue is specifically addressed. They talk of these groups of 5-10 people who just form up while playing and go from event to event. How you'll see someone and say to your friend, "hey, that guy's been following us for a while and he seems cool, let's talk to him." Or people who started out just thinking they were going to solo and really not having any intention of teaming up just being drawn into playing with others because the game just simply gives you no reason not to.
Seriously, it's very long but it's well worth a look if you haven't seen it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
thx for the link, sat thro it instead of watching x-men first class!
Thats how interesting it was
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
This is the old quest mentality. Where the only way to tackle a quest is to 'succeed'. Otherwise, you keep trying again and again until you win and get the reward.
In Dynamic Events, whether you win or lose, the next chain will occur. Of course, the next chain will depend on whether you win or lose, but either way, there's no 'retrying'. If you and your group fail to push back the attackers, then a different set of chain events will be set off.
This is what makes Dynamic Events interesting and vastly superior to quests IMO.
I think people are naturally social, when you remove conflict. Look at how pvers VASTLY outnumber pvpers, how faction based pvp games rule over pure free for all.
We will naturally group with like minded others when barriers are removed.
Anyone that wants a fixed group in open world levelling will just be out of luck. Though there are exploration chains that will probably be on the path less followed.
No game is perfect for everyone but I will be talking to anyone that helps me out, i'll be picking supportive traits and skills. Maybe i'll make a name for myself
<Welcome to my world>
My dear Meowhead,
That was a jest of unfathomable proportions, and the inherent jocularity was delightful on a scale that could only be understood by those who are both intellectually fabulous and, simultaneously, are frequently possessed by rudimentary etiquette that surpasses those who are 60%+ Killer and not enough Socializer. Also, sparrows.
-tal
Well, you could say there is a rule of "I'm better than the other guy" when playing mmos. Many think that and well, hard to blame them seeing as they don't know who is behind other PC it is better to think they are better instead of worse.
Eh, not really an old quest mentality at all, you can either pass or fail a dynamic event, if you win you get a better reward than when you lose. It doesn't matter if the centaurs take the town, if they do... you lost, simple as that. Win/lose, Pass/Fail, theres nothing else, no crazy third thing. If you want the best reward you have to win.
With this system, people can come in to make something tougher and thereby make you fail an event, thereby costing you a reward. Simple as that.
If people come in then nothing happens.
If people come in and start helping out then the even gets harder. But the even only gets harder when people are helping out.
They cancel each other out. The event isn't harder for you, it's harder for you and the people that started helping you. If the people leave then the event scales back down.
Simple as that.
Bad players "helping" won't make anything easier. I guess if you want to pretend all players are equal thats fine, but if you've ever played an MMO before you'd know players aren't equal at all.
Then again, if events are simply whack a mole then you might be right, it won't matter how bad a player is that joins.
smaller reward is still reward
And if they lose, they just get different even in chain.
This is not win/loss situation. In case of winning you get for example 100% of reward, in case of losing maybe 80%. We will have to see how they do it.
This was talked about before and I think will be a glaring problem in Gw2..
Rift is the perfect example of what I think GW2 DE's will be like..
people will do their part till the event is over,disband,and move on their way without uttering a word.
MMO's are meant to be social and yet companies make them in such a way where people can choose(and usually do) to be anti social.
It's not like your average Fex-Ex quest filled MMO creates more of a community.
If anything DE's will make it easier for you and your guildies/friends to go and level together since
a)you can join in at any given time
b)They aren't tiered/phased
True..
I think the last game I played where there was a true community feel was DAOC,which was mostly brought on by RvR.Hopefully GW2's WvW brings the same results.
Despite everything I played WAR for about 8 months, and I did feel a very strong sense of community there, so much that even to this day my guild keeps in contant with 4-5 other guilds with which we used to play together and agaisnt in WAR.
And when we move to a game, we like to know that we are together, in case of GW2 we will definitely be moving together, like we kinda did in Aion(altho most ppl quit due to steep lvling curve) knowing that there will be 3 more huge guilds in my server that are very familiar to me, and my other guildies, is just awesome tbh.
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
ArenaNet has already covered this.
For example: They have missions in the dynamic events which help make the event easier without being too direct about how to do. In the Shatterer battle, for one, you can make the battle easier by repairing the mortar guns, but for that you have to talk to people to assemble a team to go away froom the Shatterer, some players will need to do this, others will need to keep fighting him. This team will go and get the materials necessary and repair the mortars, which will then make the Shatterer fight easier.
I'm sure there are many examples of this where communication about elements which will make a dynamic event easier will get people talking.
Thats because everything ingame needs to give you a reward or else it is complete junk right?
Dynamic events are there to create EVENTS in the world, if you succeed in repelling centaurs, one chain happens, if you fail, another chain happens. I wouldn't care less if there isn't reward, as long as the events are fun to play out, regarding cooperations to succeed.
If anyone ever realise, reward ares for 3 types of people
Materialistic people, "if there ain't a reward, I ain't doing it"
People with no sense of progression of direction, "if I get a reward, I should be doing something right.....right?"
The only way to play a game is to beat the bad guys, get their loot, and move on. "I have to win.....at all cost.....for the gear that is going to drop"
You are basing your impression of Dynamic events on Rift, where rifts are one off event that will only reward you once you seal the rift, its different in GW2, one example the devs talked about is the ascalong ghost city. Humans have built defences around the city, but now the vengeful ghost are destroying them, your goal is to protect the defences so that, the defences can help with your fight against the ghost. If you fail, you simply going to have to combat the ghost without the defences. One major event spawns off multiple smaller chain of events, failing does NOT break the chain, it simply splits off into another direction.
A game is about having fun, not about the virtual reward it gives you.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
It's quite apparent that you're looking at this from a wrong angle. GW2 isn't Rift. It's not WoW. It's GW2. How a game develops on the social aspects all depends on how WE play the game. ArenaNet is giving us EVERYTHING we need to make this game a social experience. But it's up to us to do it. ArenaNet is not going to force us to play one way. So if most of the community likes just playing together and not really socializing, then that's how it's going to be. Because that's how the community approaches the game.
As the social aspect develops while we play, most of the questions about it will be answered.
LOL no I'm basing these events on what they are. You pass or fail the event. Right? You get rewards based on this, right?
If you like losing, great, more power to you, but when I play games I measure my skill on success. If you want to play games to lose thats great, as long as there are winners there needs to be losers, but I don't get to the end of a game, or win at PvP because I'm looking to lose.
Not everything has to be a reward, if you just want to see the event chain then you can do that, if seeing the chain is in some way a reward. Not everyone wants to do something to lose at it though. I like to play games for fun... like Global Agenda, where my skill and winning doesn't really net me any kind of progression, loot, or reward other than my stats for winning. I don't like to lose matches, I like to win them. Even when I do lose its alright if I at least show promising stats. In a DE playing for fun is one thing, but losing a DE due to incompetence instead of completing it successfully because you are strong enough and able is another.
This is one of the reasons I have to stay so polar on GW2, so many people think this game is offering something its not. Dynamic events aren't some amazing new way about doing everything. They are simply chains of regular quests with two simple outcomes, and rewards based on those outcomes. Its a casual game, so it allows for scaling and rewards for everyone, but thats not to say players want to lose all the time just to "experience" it.
Additionally, something I believe we do not know is if you can get a gold reward and still fail an event. What information has been given so far would seem to indicate that if you are there from beginning to end of an event, participating, damaging, rezzing, taking on seconary objectives, etc. you will get gold contribution, period. It would stand to reason, therefore, that even if the event ultimately fails (due to players being outnumbered, for example), you would still get gold contribution right before the "fail event" begins and you continue on in the event chain.
The reason this makes sense is because it jives with ANet's desire never to make players dread the appearance of others. If it were never possible to score a gold contribution reward on event failure, regardless of the level of participation, this sort of resentment would surely grow, because the end result would be that some events would be more profitable than others, and ANet doesn't want people to see things that way.
Therefore, if additional people do show up who make the event scale up (somehow, which means they are at the very least contributing somewhat to the progression of the event, for if they were uselessly harrassing the mobs the event wouldn't register their contribution and scale up accordingly), and further, make the event scale up in such a way that those who are carrying the lion's share of the work are subsequently unable to successfully complete the event, all one has to do is keep contributing, because even if you fail you will STILL get gold contribution, AND additional content in the form of the "fail event" chain branch.
In short, if anyone dreads the appearance of additional players to the Dynamic Event party, they have either misunderstood the way rewards are doled out (i.e. a single guild hoping to monopolize the rewards, not realizing that there is not a finite amount that they have to share, nor a reduced amount of reward for "failure" if you are giving it your all), or ANet's purposes in designing the events entirely (that if you want to shut people out of the content you are doing, the instanced dungeons are thataway).
I think people are assuming that somehow Dynamic Events are all about the "GO GO GO COMBAT COMBAT COMBAT" which won't ever allow a moment's rest to stop and look at the chat window, or, worse, TYPE in it. As you note, there are less actiony roles that can be taken in pursuit of completing the event, such that strategy can be discussed, etc.
In old-school MMOs I do not believe a lot of chatter occurred during combat, either (at least if I compare it to the MUDs I played); the socializing takes place during the downtime, while casters meditate or eat/drink to restore mana, etc. or while parties change locations for better spawns, or move on to the next mob in the dungeon, etc. Well, Dynamic Events have downtime, too, between chaining events, or as the party roams looking for active events, etc.
I remember doing PQs in WAR with a party that assembled in a rag-tag fashion during one chapter or another, and at the end, we'd ask if anyone wanted to move on, or repeat the PQ until everyone had maxed out their influence for that chapter, and then roam looking for the next, and then the next. I am not a particularly social player, and furthermore preferred to play in a closed group with my husband before we were living together, so I resisted Open Groups more often than not, and we STILL managed to be plenty social in the first few months of WAR. This was only impacted by the population drop as time went on.
With GW2 scaling (provided it works as planned, of course), I don't see this developing into a real issue.
Joining guilds is a good way to combat the anti social trend in mmo's these days.alot of times though,there will be pugs and that's where I can see the anti socialising take place.Just like Rifts rift events. But we shall see.
Its simple. If people feel like they need socializing they will start speaking in chat, if they just want to play the game they will play it in silence. I don't care..
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles