None of this has been stated to be fact however this is what I'd like to think my GW2 experience would be close to:
I log in run out of a town, finding that the area is being scouted and random vendors are being attacked. Since I'm already nearby, I'll start by killing a few <insert your hated mob here>. These scouts were checking out the town in preparation for a larger group to come attack. While the raid no longer has the recon they're still a threat so I'll want to take them out, but it's something beyond what I can do alone. I notice there's a new objective to gather materials for the townsfolk who are looking to take out the raid and that there's also a few other players now working on this objective as well. We gather what's needed and hand off the materials to a blacksmith who makes armor for the townspeople and voila, militia. The couple of other players that were helping along with myself now escort the townspeople to the front line of the invading raid and we thin out their ranks. After killing most of their "new recruits" we fight waves of harder mobs and continue to get backup from more players entering the area until luring out the boss who puts up a good fight but in the end is defeated. I now have done a bunch of quests that started out from a simple quest and was joined by people at all stages of the chain without worrying about anyone getting the credit before I could and without feeling there were too many people in the area and that I should come back and finish the chain later. The town is safe from that specific threat until the "captain" can come back and build up forces in the area which will take an undetermined amount of time based on player interaction.
Now lets pretend you were the one who had done that chain and I logged in to the same city an hour later. I run out of the town and see no scouts and no invading army. As there is no immediate danger perhaps I'll spend some time nearby helping a farmer out or just gathering mats for my own crafting. Perhaps I'll run off to another area because I've heard it's under attack or maybe I'll just roam the countryside.
That's just what I get from the writeups and videos I've seen so far. I can hope all I want but we'll never truly know until the game is in our hands.
Public quest failed becaue they are to structured and lock into a place
Rifts failed because they never punished the players before release trion but in a timer that close Rifts,So you never had close Rifts they would just go away.They did this so you could do the other content such as quest,dungeons,etc
The differance is DE is the content GW2 was smart enough to merge all the content together raids,quest into DE,So when fail event another is event open.Rifts babied their system it is not they are not as dynamic it is that rifts but a leash on them.If Rifts took off the timer and let stay open until somebody closed them it would be a total different case,Rifts let invasions happen,invasion take out NPCs, then open up other Rifts.One little Rifts left unchecked take over the whole zone.It turns Rifts into a game about fighting Rifts instead of WoW with random enemies popping portals.
Differance between DE and Rifts,Anet does not care if you fail if enemies take over the whole world then they are events that happen because of that,Trion was afriad to let Rifts take over world because then you could not do quests or access content,Since DE is the content it is fine that content kick your butt.Meaning they could make Shatterer amazingly hard and for months nobody can beat because DE trigger other event to do.Rifts didn't build all their systems in together,So If a Rift was to take over the world you couldn't do quests or maybe dungeons.
Will GW2 completely you drawn into illusion of real world and you are changing things? No but unlike Rifts GW 2 system built in a way that you probably won't notice that system repetive until a couple of play through of the game or that content.
Is GW 2 only one server then . Because if it has many servers then the servers with a low population will never be able to complete the DE. This idea that the DE stays until you get rid of it works if there is only one server which everyone plays on and therefore able to complete the DEs. Otherwise people will start complaining and grousing about not being able to play.
Is GW 2 only one server then . Because if it has many servers then the servers with a low population will never be able to complete the DE. This idea that the DE stays until you get rid of it works if there is only one server which everyone plays on and therefore able to complete the DEs. Otherwise people will start complaining and grousing about not being able to play.
Most DEs can be completed with 1 person. Even the VERY biggest events can be completed with a mere 10 people.
The power of scaling.
If you can't get 10 people on your WHOLE SERVER to come and free a town from the terrifying grip of a dragon or something, you know your server is really, really dead. The sort of dead that makes the people playing Vanguard look smug about how many players they have.
... and you'd be able to play in a nearly abandoned post-apocalyptic server. The main cities are never taken over, so that's at least 6 places you can go. Sure, you won't be able to access all the other towns, but there's plenty of stuff to do for a single person outside of them. Anyway, any server where you're the only person, you should probably transfer servers. :T
Is GW 2 only one server then . Because if it has many servers then the servers with a low population will never be able to complete the DE. This idea that the DE stays until you get rid of it works if there is only one server which everyone plays on and therefore able to complete the DEs. Otherwise people will start complaining and grousing about not being able to play.
When a DE is completed it isn't done forever and then never happens again. A DE will eventually happen again but the hope is for the same ones to not happen constantly and become repetitious.
Edit: No DE ever has to be completed and they all offer the same rewards of gold, exp and karma. If people miss a certain DE then they can just do it the next time that it happens (whenever that might be).
No, many quests have factors that are simply impossible to scale or would not work with scaling.. Read my previous posts and find the most recent example I gave (I.E.: the assassination of the chieftain one).
... and many factors that work in dynamic events you never see in quests, and may in fact be incompatible with quests.
The difference is that dynamic events are the story of the =world=, while quests are the story of the =player=. Yes. Dynamic events are less about the epic (lie) of how your character is unique and amazing, and more about 'this is what happens in the world'.
Yes, that means that they have to be designed differently, with different goals and different methods of implementation.
You're basically complaining about a car because you can't go down a river on it, then claiming that means a boat is superior in all ways.
No, many quests have factors that are simply impossible to scale or would not work with scaling.. Read my previous posts and find the most recent example I gave (I.E.: the assassination of the chieftain one).
... and many factors that work in dynamic events you never see in quests, and may in fact be incompatible with quests.
The difference is that dynamic events are the story of the =world=, while quests are the story of the =player=. Yes. Dynamic events are less about the epic (lie) of how your character is unique and amazing, and more about 'this is what happens in the world'.
Yes, that means that they have to be designed differently, with different goals and different methods of implementation.
You're basically complaining about a car because you can't go down a river on it, then claiming that means a boat is superior in all ways.
Maybe you should research the benefit of cars. :T
Actually, I was comparing Dynamic Events to quests because they are essentially replacing questing in the Open World. Therefore, my comparison is most relevant and valid. I know they are designed differently and that is why I am critiquing the Dynamic Events system. While it does have its benefits compared to a regular questing system, the tradeoffs are quite heavy, and for that I am showing my concern. I do appreciate the ease of walking to a place, doing things automatically, and witnessing the consequences of my actions. However, I believe the fact that objectives need to be scalable is a major hinderance which will eventually lead to repetition within the core experience that will ultimately lead to dissatisfaction.
Is GW 2 only one server then . Because if it has many servers then the servers with a low population will never be able to complete the DE. This idea that the DE stays until you get rid of it works if there is only one server which everyone plays on and therefore able to complete the DEs. Otherwise people will start complaining and grousing about not being able to play.
DE is content,DE will keep creating quests for example: Lets pretend we have a dragon
-Before the Dragon they are ten quests,complete quest that triggers the dragon
-When the Dragon is active then are ten different quests
-You defeat the dragon ten different post dragon quests are avaible
-You don't defeat dragon,They are ten quests avaible for that state
Anet does not care that your server sucks and can't beat the event because they have provide you with other events to do reguardless of what is happening.That is beauty of the system quest and raids are built in to system they can't complain beacuse that is the game.
Is GW 2 only one server then . Because if it has many servers then the servers with a low population will never be able to complete the DE. This idea that the DE stays until you get rid of it works if there is only one server which everyone plays on and therefore able to complete the DEs. Otherwise people will start complaining and grousing about not being able to play.
DE is content,DE will keep creating quests for example: Lets pretend we have a dragon
-Before the Dragon they are ten quests,complete quest that triggers the dragon
-When the Dragon is active then are ten different quests
-You defeat the dragon ten different post dragon quests are avaible
-You don't defeat dragon,They are ten quests avaible for that state
Anet does not care that your server sucks and can't beat the event because they have provide you with other events to do reguardless of what is happening.That is beauty of the system quest and raids are built in to system they can't complain beacuse that is the game.
Additionally, most events aren't made to be very difficult and can be soloed. It never hurts to allow players to be able to play alone if they want to (or at least it shouldn't because of the things in the game that ease group play and try and make it more natural). I say this because the more times people say it the more likely people are to remember it.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
I believe these arguments will go on till the end of time, till when Anet decides GW2 will be shut down because it's been 250 years and everyone has started playing GW 25.
Anyone else feel like we are on an endless merry go round? Someone will raise a similar doubt on Dynamic Events, while making obvious they have no real idea how they work in the game, people will argue, but most agree that the system is more than a few steps beyond PQs and Rifts, the thread dies, then someone raises the same question a few weeks later, with out taking ten minutes to check other threads in the forum that have already answered the same question.
The system is pretty complex. Some DE chains are simple. Others are complex. Some are linear, others branch. Some DEs effect others and some are only triggered by rare events or happenstance. Each zone will have thousands of possible combinations of various event states, so it is unlikely that the zone will ever be in the same state on subsequent visits.
The changes to the world do matter, because you see the effects of the events in the game world. It won't just be that the state of some variables in the database will be different, but there will be real, visible differences in the appearance of the zone and the activities you will encounter there. It also provides extra motivation for players and helps to immerse them into the game. Players are more likely to help villagers collect wood and stone to rebuild their houses and defenses if the results are visible in the world, rather than just some quest text thanking you for the help rebuilding the village, while the environment continues to show the place in ruins. (It's also better than showing changes via phasing).
The developers have also mentioned that some DEs will have some randomness to them, so even if they have been down the same path before, there may be differences in how the individual events play out.
I think one thing some might miss is that while some simple DEs may recylce in fairly short order, others may take days or weeks to play out. This isn't a system where content follows a few steps in completely linear fashion and then repeats ten minutes later.
I'd also add that ANet has talked about the fact that they have very efficient Dynamic Event creation tools in place. The initial design of a DE is said to take anywhere from 30 minutes to 6 hours, depending on complexity, with additional itterations fine tuning the initial design until they feel it's fun and bug free. They have said that the efficiency of DE creation will allow them to continue to produce new DEs as free, ongoing content and that they plan on rotating some DEs in and out of the game, in order to help keep the world fresh.
The entire system is leaps and bounds beyond PQs, which were linear, usually consisting of three stages and repeating on a frequent time schedule. It's also well beyond Rifts and Rift invasions. Rifts themselves aren't much evolved from PQs, though the schedule they repeat on is much more sporadic. Invasions have some minor variety, depending on which forces players defeat when and where, but the entire things still plays out in a fairly short period of time and has no lasting effects, win or lose, on the game. (In fact, when the invaders do win, they just fade away after a short period of time, making one wonder why they even bothered in the first place).
I think some people will never understand the difference until they play the game and experience it, while others read the details and instantly understand the positive implications.
DE is content,DE will keep creating quests for example: Lets pretend we have a dragon
-Before the Dragon they are ten quests,complete quest that triggers the dragon
-When the Dragon is active then are ten different quests
-You defeat the dragon ten different post dragon quests are avaible
-You don't defeat dragon,They are ten quests avaible for that state
Anet does not care that your server sucks and can't beat the event because they have provide you with other events to do reguardless of what is happening.That is beauty of the system quest and raids are built in to system they can't complain beacuse that is the game.
I can actually believe that if you find yourself on a server where everyone suck it will affect the high level areas somewhat badly.
That is why you can change servers for free if you for some reason should find yourself on the worst server in the game.
I have no doubt that one or a few servers will be reallt bad and failing every event that happens wont be fun no matter how many new ones that spawns. But failing quests and dungeons isn't fun either.
The dungeons in GW2 will be pretty hard in exploration mode so you really don't want to be in the worst server ever, unless you jouin 4 friends that actually play good, because as someone wise said: "In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed is alone master".
Anyone else feel like we are on an endless merry go round? Someone will raise a similar doubt on Dynamic Events, while making obvious they have no real idea how they work in the game, people will argue, but most agree that the system is more than a few steps beyond PQs and Rifts, the thread dies, then someone raises the same question a few weeks later, with out taking ten minutes to check other threads in the forum that have already answered the same question.
I've always said that if someone has a sincere question, I'll try to answer it. It doesn't matter if they could have probably easily looked it up. In the time it would take me to write something snarky, I could just answer the question. The game has baggage from being a sequel to GW1, there's plenty of misinformation about it, and it seems like a ton of people have still never heard of it. I figure the least I can do is try to be an ambassador for the game and give them a positive impression about the community.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that we don't know everything. I think GW2 looks great, ArenaNet is open with information, and extensive demos have backed it up. But at the same time until we get our hands on it we don't know for sure. Who knows, maybe DEs will lose their luster more quickly than we anticipate, or any number of other potential problems. So if someone has a doubt, I do my best to address it with the best info I have. Maybe I convince them, maybe I don't, maybe I'm just wrong, maybe someone will link something I haven't seen before. As long as we can have a sincere discussion, then I'm fine with it.
That being said, I do find myself getting a little frustrated with people who consistently bash the game. Not because they're bashing the game, but because the discussion goes nowhere. Someone has doubts, that's fine, but then a GW2 fan presents a counterargument and then there's no more discussion from that doubter...in that thread. But then the next thread comes along and that person is there again doing the same thing. I'm fine with a new person every couple weeks, but when it's the same replies to the same people that gets old.
If nothing else, the merry go round will end when GW2 comes out. That's something at least.
"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
Originally posted by cali59If nothing else, the merry go round will end when GW2 comes out. That's something at least.
hehe. I admire your optimism. But looking at, oh, every other mmo out right now, people still argue over personal preference and misinformation. And for the record, this game really doesn't appeal to me at all. But I will concede without hesitation that Dynamic Events are a huge step in the right direction for mmo questing.
I can't find the link at the moment but there is a Q&A where Colin talks a lot about DEs. He said that in the 'centaurs attacking the village' scenario that the centaurs would hold the village until players take it back, whether that take an hour or 3 months. So it doesn't sound like its gonna be a deal where everything returns to normal and the centaurs attack again once a timer is up.
Hard to say how they will turn out when game is not even released yet. I am surprised that this diiscussion is going on for 15 pages when no one has played the DE's in sufficent amount to arrive to any conclusion.
Hard to say how they will turn out when game is not even released yet. I am surprised that this diiscussion is going on for 15 pages when no one has played the DE's in sufficent amount to arrive to any conclusion.
What else is there to do but wait for and discuss the the minute details and do some theorycrafting on the side? GW2 is a popular topic of discussion, especially given the high amount of information (about certain topics) that we have.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Hard to say how they will turn out when game is not even released yet. I am surprised that this diiscussion is going on for 15 pages when no one has played the DE's in sufficent amount to arrive to any conclusion.
Well for anyone playing Rift and watching how the DE are builds in the vids its not hard to see the difference. Rift don't even have any scenario behind, its just some random spawn using the same path over and over again. GW2 have something to sustain them behind, they really are about a scenario happening. Maybe the end feeling will be the same for us player, you can be skeptical, but they weren't build the same way at all. Its pretty obvious.
Then this game will be a big step in the right direction.......
Spawnpoints are much less set then in current MMO's spawnpoints change all the time based on all the various events...
On top i want to add.....games with more AI and less repeating scripts... If the spawnpoint is the same, but the mobs wander off in different directions and are much less confined by set borders, the game will feel much less repetitive...
On top of that there is allways the use of skills... if you cycle through the same skills over and over its very repetitive... if the game forces you to choose skills based on reactions its way less repetitive...
GW2 has a lot of these things incorporated....
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Anyone else feel like we are on an endless merry go round? Someone will raise a similar doubt on Dynamic Events, while making obvious they have no real idea how they work in the game, people will argue, but most agree that the system is more than a few steps beyond PQs and Rifts, the thread dies, then someone raises the same question a few weeks later, with out taking ten minutes to check other threads in the forum that have already answered the same question.
I've always said that if someone has a sincere question, I'll try to answer it. It doesn't matter if they could have probably easily looked it up. In the time it would take me to write something snarky, I could just answer the question. The game has baggage from being a sequel to GW1, there's plenty of misinformation about it, and it seems like a ton of people have still never heard of it. I figure the least I can do is try to be an ambassador for the game and give them a positive impression about the community.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that we don't know everything. I think GW2 looks great, ArenaNet is open with information, and extensive demos have backed it up. But at the same time until we get our hands on it we don't know for sure. Who knows, maybe DEs will lose their luster more quickly than we anticipate, or any number of other potential problems. So if someone has a doubt, I do my best to address it with the best info I have. Maybe I convince them, maybe I don't, maybe I'm just wrong, maybe someone will link something I haven't seen before. As long as we can have a sincere discussion, then I'm fine with it.
That being said, I do find myself getting a little frustrated with people who consistently bash the game. Not because they're bashing the game, but because the discussion goes nowhere. Someone has doubts, that's fine, but then a GW2 fan presents a counterargument and then there's no more discussion from that doubter...in that thread. But then the next thread comes along and that person is there again doing the same thing. I'm fine with a new person every couple weeks, but when it's the same replies to the same people that gets old.
If nothing else, the merry go round will end when GW2 comes out. That's something at least.
I generally agree with that, but "i have a feeling gw2 events will be no better than rifts or PQs" didn't strike me as a particularly sincere question. Add in the fact that the topic takes a lot of text to sufficiently cover and I just had to groan over the thread a little.
It was my bad, however, for not posting a link to the previous thread. I hate when people cite a previous thread when discussing redundancy, then don't post a link. Apologies on that regard.
Actually, I was comparing Dynamic Events to quests because they are essentially replacing questing in the Open World. Therefore, my comparison is most relevant and valid. I know they are designed differently and that is why I am critiquing the Dynamic Events system. While it does have its benefits compared to a regular questing system, the tradeoffs are quite heavy, and for that I am showing my concern. I do appreciate the ease of walking to a place, doing things automatically, and witnessing the consequences of my actions. However, I believe the fact that objectives need to be scalable is a major hinderance which will eventually lead to repetition within the core experience that will ultimately lead to dissatisfaction.
You can't compare dynamic events directly to any element of previous MMORPGs. I know it makes things easy when every new development can be mapped 1:1 onto a previous game's features so that it's simple to understand, but these games are much more complex than that. You can't separate out a single tree and understand the whole forest.
Questing (what I call the task grind) in a WoW-formula MMORPG (i.e. the central advancement path) doesn't translate directly to GW2 other than to say there is no task grind. There is also no WoW-formula raid grinding at max level...that poor retention mechanic involving farming instances hundreds of times for the next tier of gear has also been replaced and doesn't exist in GW2.
The central path of advancement in GW2 consists of multiple systems. Dynamic events, dungeons, and personal story questing. Remember that dynamic events involve everything from basic scenarios which can be handled by 1-10 players, to long chains of events that flow across an entire zone, all the way to huge boss battles for 10-100 players acting in a coordinated way. The systems and content I mentioned also work as endgame content, due to the scaling / sidekicking system.
The tradeoffs you are analyzing between dynamic events and quests don't exist at all when you look at the game as a whole. The elements that can't be done with dynamic events are handled (and handled much more effectively) by the personal story and dungeons. Dynamic events provide a lot of things that questing never could...so looking at the game in total, including the differences in fundamental aspects like combat, leads to a complete picture of a game that is dramatically better, and making your concerns invalid. In short, you can't look at a single element in a badly designed game like Rift, and assume that a single element in a well designed game like GW2 is going to suffer the same pitfalls. It's an inaccurate oversimplification.
Actually, I was comparing Dynamic Events to quests because they are essentially replacing questing in the Open World. Therefore, my comparison is most relevant and valid. I know they are designed differently and that is why I am critiquing the Dynamic Events system. While it does have its benefits compared to a regular questing system, the tradeoffs are quite heavy, and for that I am showing my concern. I do appreciate the ease of walking to a place, doing things automatically, and witnessing the consequences of my actions. However, I believe the fact that objectives need to be scalable is a major hinderance which will eventually lead to repetition within the core experience that will ultimately lead to dissatisfaction.
You can't compare dynamic events directly to any element of previous MMORPGs. I know it makes things easy when every new development can be mapped 1:1 onto a previous game's features so that it's simple to understand, but these games are much more complex than that. You can't separate out a single tree and understand the whole forest.
Questing (what I call the task grind) in a WoW-formula MMORPG (i.e. the central advancement path) doesn't translate directly to GW2 other than to say there is no task grind. There is also no WoW-formula raid grinding at max level...that poor retention mechanic involving farming instances hundreds of times for the next tier of gear has also been replaced and doesn't exist in GW2.
The central path of advancement in GW2 consists of multiple systems. Dynamic events, dungeons, and personal story questing. Remember that dynamic events involve everything from basic scenarios which can be handled by 1-10 players, to long chains of events that flow across an entire zone, all the way to huge boss battles for 10-100 players acting in a coordinated way. The systems and content I mentioned also work as endgame content, due to the scaling / sidekicking system.
The tradeoffs you are analyzing between dynamic events and quests don't exist at all when you look at the game as a whole. The elements that can't be done with dynamic events are handled (and handled much more effectively) by the personal story and dungeons. Dynamic events provide a lot of things that questing never could...so looking at the game in total, including the differences in fundamental aspects like combat, leads to a complete picture of a game that is dramatically better, and making your concerns invalid. In short, you can't look at a single element in a badly designed game like Rift, and assume that a single element in a well designed game like GW2 is going to suffer the same pitfalls. It's an inaccurate oversimplification.
You can't compare dynamic events directly to any element of previous MMORPGs. I know it makes things easy when every new development can be mapped 1:1 onto a previous game's features so that it's simple to understand, but these games are much more complex than that. You can't separate out a single tree and understand the whole forest.
Questing (what I call the task grind) in a WoW-formula MMORPG (i.e. the central advancement path) doesn't translate directly to GW2 other than to say there is no task grind. There is also no WoW-formula raid grinding at max level...that poor retention mechanic involving farming instances hundreds of times for the next tier of gear has also been replaced and doesn't exist in GW2.
The central path of advancement in GW2 consists of multiple systems. Dynamic events, dungeons, and personal story questing. Remember that dynamic events involve everything from basic scenarios which can be handled by 1-10 players, to long chains of events that flow across an entire zone, all the way to huge boss battles for 10-100 players acting in a coordinated way. The systems and content I mentioned also work as endgame content, due to the scaling / sidekicking system.
The tradeoffs you are analyzing between dynamic events and quests don't exist at all when you look at the game as a whole. The elements that can't be done with dynamic events are handled (and handled much more effectively) by the personal story and dungeons. Dynamic events provide a lot of things that questing never could...so looking at the game in total, including the differences in fundamental aspects like combat, leads to a complete picture of a game that is dramatically better, and making your concerns invalid. In short, you can't look at a single element in a badly designed game like Rift, and assume that a single element in a well designed game like GW2 is going to suffer the same pitfalls. It's an inaccurate oversimplification.
I disagree. Dynamic Events can and should be analyzed without considering the other forms of gameplay because, essentially, while you are doing a Dynamic Event, the Personal Story system, the dungeon system, and all these other systems will have no effect on your immediate experience. Since Dynamic Events will suffer from the disadvantage of having to use objectives that are scalable, I believe this will lead to a severe limitation and ultimately repetition in the gameplay experience pertaining to doing Dynamic Events.
It's like saying one shouldn't analyze Public Quests as a feature but as a part of the whole because other features complement it, but that simply isn't true. Your immediate experience, what really matters, when doing Dynamic Events will become repetitive no matter how good the other gameplay areas are due to the crude objectives it has to make use of. Therefore, the issues do indeed exist. The flaws are entirely concrete. Dynamic Events are a HUGE part of the game, even though it is not the only form of progression. What you are fundamentally advocating here is that if a game's open world PvE is repetitive while the instanced PvE isn't, then there is no problem, since one features makes up for the other, which is quite ludicrous.
Thanks for the pro-GW2 thread OP. Probably wasn't their intention, I don't care, but I'm more excited than ever reading some of these responses. Truly dynamic? Maybe not, it's a video game. Dynamic in the sense that I won't be doing the same thing all the time like Rift and WoW? That's dynamic enough for me, and more.
Comments
None of this has been stated to be fact however this is what I'd like to think my GW2 experience would be close to:
I log in run out of a town, finding that the area is being scouted and random vendors are being attacked. Since I'm already nearby, I'll start by killing a few <insert your hated mob here>. These scouts were checking out the town in preparation for a larger group to come attack. While the raid no longer has the recon they're still a threat so I'll want to take them out, but it's something beyond what I can do alone. I notice there's a new objective to gather materials for the townsfolk who are looking to take out the raid and that there's also a few other players now working on this objective as well. We gather what's needed and hand off the materials to a blacksmith who makes armor for the townspeople and voila, militia. The couple of other players that were helping along with myself now escort the townspeople to the front line of the invading raid and we thin out their ranks. After killing most of their "new recruits" we fight waves of harder mobs and continue to get backup from more players entering the area until luring out the boss who puts up a good fight but in the end is defeated. I now have done a bunch of quests that started out from a simple quest and was joined by people at all stages of the chain without worrying about anyone getting the credit before I could and without feeling there were too many people in the area and that I should come back and finish the chain later. The town is safe from that specific threat until the "captain" can come back and build up forces in the area which will take an undetermined amount of time based on player interaction.
Now lets pretend you were the one who had done that chain and I logged in to the same city an hour later. I run out of the town and see no scouts and no invading army. As there is no immediate danger perhaps I'll spend some time nearby helping a farmer out or just gathering mats for my own crafting. Perhaps I'll run off to another area because I've heard it's under attack or maybe I'll just roam the countryside.
That's just what I get from the writeups and videos I've seen so far. I can hope all I want but we'll never truly know until the game is in our hands.
Public quest failed becaue they are to structured and lock into a place
Rifts failed because they never punished the players before release trion but in a timer that close Rifts,So you never had close Rifts they would just go away.They did this so you could do the other content such as quest,dungeons,etc
The differance is DE is the content GW2 was smart enough to merge all the content together raids,quest into DE,So when fail event another is event open.Rifts babied their system it is not they are not as dynamic it is that rifts but a leash on them.If Rifts took off the timer and let stay open until somebody closed them it would be a total different case,Rifts let invasions happen,invasion take out NPCs, then open up other Rifts.One little Rifts left unchecked take over the whole zone.It turns Rifts into a game about fighting Rifts instead of WoW with random enemies popping portals.
Differance between DE and Rifts,Anet does not care if you fail if enemies take over the whole world then they are events that happen because of that,Trion was afriad to let Rifts take over world because then you could not do quests or access content,Since DE is the content it is fine that content kick your butt.Meaning they could make Shatterer amazingly hard and for months nobody can beat because DE trigger other event to do.Rifts didn't build all their systems in together,So If a Rift was to take over the world you couldn't do quests or maybe dungeons.
Will GW2 completely you drawn into illusion of real world and you are changing things? No but unlike Rifts GW 2 system built in a way that you probably won't notice that system repetive until a couple of play through of the game or that content.
Is GW 2 only one server then . Because if it has many servers then the servers with a low population will never be able to complete the DE. This idea that the DE stays until you get rid of it works if there is only one server which everyone plays on and therefore able to complete the DEs. Otherwise people will start complaining and grousing about not being able to play.
Most DEs can be completed with 1 person. Even the VERY biggest events can be completed with a mere 10 people.
The power of scaling.
If you can't get 10 people on your WHOLE SERVER to come and free a town from the terrifying grip of a dragon or something, you know your server is really, really dead. The sort of dead that makes the people playing Vanguard look smug about how many players they have.
... and you'd be able to play in a nearly abandoned post-apocalyptic server. The main cities are never taken over, so that's at least 6 places you can go. Sure, you won't be able to access all the other towns, but there's plenty of stuff to do for a single person outside of them. Anyway, any server where you're the only person, you should probably transfer servers. :T
GW2 is going to have more than 1 server.
And I'm pretty sure DE's don't work that way.
Watch:
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013691/Designing-Guild-Wars-2-Dynamic
When a DE is completed it isn't done forever and then never happens again. A DE will eventually happen again but the hope is for the same ones to not happen constantly and become repetitious.
Edit: No DE ever has to be completed and they all offer the same rewards of gold, exp and karma. If people miss a certain DE then they can just do it the next time that it happens (whenever that might be).
... and many factors that work in dynamic events you never see in quests, and may in fact be incompatible with quests.
The difference is that dynamic events are the story of the =world=, while quests are the story of the =player=. Yes. Dynamic events are less about the epic (lie) of how your character is unique and amazing, and more about 'this is what happens in the world'.
Yes, that means that they have to be designed differently, with different goals and different methods of implementation.
You're basically complaining about a car because you can't go down a river on it, then claiming that means a boat is superior in all ways.
Maybe you should research the benefit of cars. :T
Actually, I was comparing Dynamic Events to quests because they are essentially replacing questing in the Open World. Therefore, my comparison is most relevant and valid. I know they are designed differently and that is why I am critiquing the Dynamic Events system. While it does have its benefits compared to a regular questing system, the tradeoffs are quite heavy, and for that I am showing my concern. I do appreciate the ease of walking to a place, doing things automatically, and witnessing the consequences of my actions. However, I believe the fact that objectives need to be scalable is a major hinderance which will eventually lead to repetition within the core experience that will ultimately lead to dissatisfaction.
DE is content,DE will keep creating quests for example: Lets pretend we have a dragon
-Before the Dragon they are ten quests,complete quest that triggers the dragon
-When the Dragon is active then are ten different quests
-You defeat the dragon ten different post dragon quests are avaible
-You don't defeat dragon,They are ten quests avaible for that state
Anet does not care that your server sucks and can't beat the event because they have provide you with other events to do reguardless of what is happening.That is beauty of the system quest and raids are built in to system they can't complain beacuse that is the game.
Additionally, most events aren't made to be very difficult and can be soloed. It never hurts to allow players to be able to play alone if they want to (or at least it shouldn't because of the things in the game that ease group play and try and make it more natural).
I say this because the more times people say it the more likely people are to remember it.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Quite a novel way to handle it.Thanks for the explanation.
I believe these arguments will go on till the end of time, till when Anet decides GW2 will be shut down because it's been 250 years and everyone has started playing GW 25.
This is not a game.
Anyone else feel like we are on an endless merry go round? Someone will raise a similar doubt on Dynamic Events, while making obvious they have no real idea how they work in the game, people will argue, but most agree that the system is more than a few steps beyond PQs and Rifts, the thread dies, then someone raises the same question a few weeks later, with out taking ten minutes to check other threads in the forum that have already answered the same question.
The system is pretty complex. Some DE chains are simple. Others are complex. Some are linear, others branch. Some DEs effect others and some are only triggered by rare events or happenstance. Each zone will have thousands of possible combinations of various event states, so it is unlikely that the zone will ever be in the same state on subsequent visits.
The changes to the world do matter, because you see the effects of the events in the game world. It won't just be that the state of some variables in the database will be different, but there will be real, visible differences in the appearance of the zone and the activities you will encounter there. It also provides extra motivation for players and helps to immerse them into the game. Players are more likely to help villagers collect wood and stone to rebuild their houses and defenses if the results are visible in the world, rather than just some quest text thanking you for the help rebuilding the village, while the environment continues to show the place in ruins. (It's also better than showing changes via phasing).
The developers have also mentioned that some DEs will have some randomness to them, so even if they have been down the same path before, there may be differences in how the individual events play out.
I think one thing some might miss is that while some simple DEs may recylce in fairly short order, others may take days or weeks to play out. This isn't a system where content follows a few steps in completely linear fashion and then repeats ten minutes later.
I'd also add that ANet has talked about the fact that they have very efficient Dynamic Event creation tools in place. The initial design of a DE is said to take anywhere from 30 minutes to 6 hours, depending on complexity, with additional itterations fine tuning the initial design until they feel it's fun and bug free. They have said that the efficiency of DE creation will allow them to continue to produce new DEs as free, ongoing content and that they plan on rotating some DEs in and out of the game, in order to help keep the world fresh.
The entire system is leaps and bounds beyond PQs, which were linear, usually consisting of three stages and repeating on a frequent time schedule. It's also well beyond Rifts and Rift invasions. Rifts themselves aren't much evolved from PQs, though the schedule they repeat on is much more sporadic. Invasions have some minor variety, depending on which forces players defeat when and where, but the entire things still plays out in a fairly short period of time and has no lasting effects, win or lose, on the game. (In fact, when the invaders do win, they just fade away after a short period of time, making one wonder why they even bothered in the first place).
I think some people will never understand the difference until they play the game and experience it, while others read the details and instantly understand the positive implications.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
I can actually believe that if you find yourself on a server where everyone suck it will affect the high level areas somewhat badly.
That is why you can change servers for free if you for some reason should find yourself on the worst server in the game.
I have no doubt that one or a few servers will be reallt bad and failing every event that happens wont be fun no matter how many new ones that spawns. But failing quests and dungeons isn't fun either.
The dungeons in GW2 will be pretty hard in exploration mode so you really don't want to be in the worst server ever, unless you jouin 4 friends that actually play good, because as someone wise said: "In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed is alone master".
I've always said that if someone has a sincere question, I'll try to answer it. It doesn't matter if they could have probably easily looked it up. In the time it would take me to write something snarky, I could just answer the question. The game has baggage from being a sequel to GW1, there's plenty of misinformation about it, and it seems like a ton of people have still never heard of it. I figure the least I can do is try to be an ambassador for the game and give them a positive impression about the community.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that we don't know everything. I think GW2 looks great, ArenaNet is open with information, and extensive demos have backed it up. But at the same time until we get our hands on it we don't know for sure. Who knows, maybe DEs will lose their luster more quickly than we anticipate, or any number of other potential problems. So if someone has a doubt, I do my best to address it with the best info I have. Maybe I convince them, maybe I don't, maybe I'm just wrong, maybe someone will link something I haven't seen before. As long as we can have a sincere discussion, then I'm fine with it.
That being said, I do find myself getting a little frustrated with people who consistently bash the game. Not because they're bashing the game, but because the discussion goes nowhere. Someone has doubts, that's fine, but then a GW2 fan presents a counterargument and then there's no more discussion from that doubter...in that thread. But then the next thread comes along and that person is there again doing the same thing. I'm fine with a new person every couple weeks, but when it's the same replies to the same people that gets old.
If nothing else, the merry go round will end when GW2 comes out. That's something at least.
"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
hehe. I admire your optimism. But looking at, oh, every other mmo out right now, people still argue over personal preference and misinformation. And for the record, this game really doesn't appeal to me at all. But I will concede without hesitation that Dynamic Events are a huge step in the right direction for mmo questing.
I can't find the link at the moment but there is a Q&A where Colin talks a lot about DEs. He said that in the 'centaurs attacking the village' scenario that the centaurs would hold the village until players take it back, whether that take an hour or 3 months. So it doesn't sound like its gonna be a deal where everything returns to normal and the centaurs attack again once a timer is up.
Hard to say how they will turn out when game is not even released yet. I am surprised that this diiscussion is going on for 15 pages when no one has played the DE's in sufficent amount to arrive to any conclusion.
What else is there to do but wait for and discuss the the minute details and do some theorycrafting on the side? GW2 is a popular topic of discussion, especially given the high amount of information (about certain topics) that we have.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Well for anyone playing Rift and watching how the DE are builds in the vids its not hard to see the difference. Rift don't even have any scenario behind, its just some random spawn using the same path over and over again. GW2 have something to sustain them behind, they really are about a scenario happening. Maybe the end feeling will be the same for us player, you can be skeptical, but they weren't build the same way at all. Its pretty obvious.
Then this game will be a big step in the right direction.......
Spawnpoints are much less set then in current MMO's spawnpoints change all the time based on all the various events...
On top i want to add.....games with more AI and less repeating scripts... If the spawnpoint is the same, but the mobs wander off in different directions and are much less confined by set borders, the game will feel much less repetitive...
On top of that there is allways the use of skills... if you cycle through the same skills over and over its very repetitive... if the game forces you to choose skills based on reactions its way less repetitive...
GW2 has a lot of these things incorporated....
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I generally agree with that, but "i have a feeling gw2 events will be no better than rifts or PQs" didn't strike me as a particularly sincere question. Add in the fact that the topic takes a lot of text to sufficiently cover and I just had to groan over the thread a little.
It was my bad, however, for not posting a link to the previous thread. I hate when people cite a previous thread when discussing redundancy, then don't post a link. Apologies on that regard.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/329020/So-whats-so-revolutionary-about-dynamic-events.html
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
You can't compare dynamic events directly to any element of previous MMORPGs. I know it makes things easy when every new development can be mapped 1:1 onto a previous game's features so that it's simple to understand, but these games are much more complex than that. You can't separate out a single tree and understand the whole forest.
Questing (what I call the task grind) in a WoW-formula MMORPG (i.e. the central advancement path) doesn't translate directly to GW2 other than to say there is no task grind. There is also no WoW-formula raid grinding at max level...that poor retention mechanic involving farming instances hundreds of times for the next tier of gear has also been replaced and doesn't exist in GW2.
The central path of advancement in GW2 consists of multiple systems. Dynamic events, dungeons, and personal story questing. Remember that dynamic events involve everything from basic scenarios which can be handled by 1-10 players, to long chains of events that flow across an entire zone, all the way to huge boss battles for 10-100 players acting in a coordinated way. The systems and content I mentioned also work as endgame content, due to the scaling / sidekicking system.
The tradeoffs you are analyzing between dynamic events and quests don't exist at all when you look at the game as a whole. The elements that can't be done with dynamic events are handled (and handled much more effectively) by the personal story and dungeons. Dynamic events provide a lot of things that questing never could...so looking at the game in total, including the differences in fundamental aspects like combat, leads to a complete picture of a game that is dramatically better, and making your concerns invalid. In short, you can't look at a single element in a badly designed game like Rift, and assume that a single element in a well designed game like GW2 is going to suffer the same pitfalls. It's an inaccurate oversimplification.
Nice man, well put.
Guild Wars 2's 50 minutes game play video:
http://n4g.com/news/592585/guild-wars-2-50-minutes-of-pure-gameplay
Everything We Know about GW2:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/287180/page/1
I disagree. Dynamic Events can and should be analyzed without considering the other forms of gameplay because, essentially, while you are doing a Dynamic Event, the Personal Story system, the dungeon system, and all these other systems will have no effect on your immediate experience. Since Dynamic Events will suffer from the disadvantage of having to use objectives that are scalable, I believe this will lead to a severe limitation and ultimately repetition in the gameplay experience pertaining to doing Dynamic Events.
It's like saying one shouldn't analyze Public Quests as a feature but as a part of the whole because other features complement it, but that simply isn't true. Your immediate experience, what really matters, when doing Dynamic Events will become repetitive no matter how good the other gameplay areas are due to the crude objectives it has to make use of. Therefore, the issues do indeed exist. The flaws are entirely concrete. Dynamic Events are a HUGE part of the game, even though it is not the only form of progression. What you are fundamentally advocating here is that if a game's open world PvE is repetitive while the instanced PvE isn't, then there is no problem, since one features makes up for the other, which is quite ludicrous.
Thanks for the pro-GW2 thread OP. Probably wasn't their intention, I don't care, but I'm more excited than ever reading some of these responses. Truly dynamic? Maybe not, it's a video game. Dynamic in the sense that I won't be doing the same thing all the time like Rift and WoW? That's dynamic enough for me, and more.