WHich tends to become static after players figure out those goals and objectives and learn the best way to complete them, in many cases they become anti-PVP in that players avoid fights and just rush objectives that are unguarded.
How can these objectives and goals become static wen you have multiple means of acheiving objectives and goals combined with thousands of combinations of players with thousands of combinations of builds. You introduce an infintive amount of choices.
The variety is far more than standing in a bush near a quest area to kill players.
I'm not antipvp.
PVPers need to realize that pvp is a seperate game, a seperate genre closer to FPS's than RPGs and a game built on cooperation and teamwork could not have it in the main game. It needs to be in a seperate area.
If you are going to have pvp in agame the whole game has to be about open world pvp.
No experience in WAR or TOR I take it? I'd find it odd if you had and didn't seem to know what I was talking about.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Its actually three open worlds if you count the personal story GW2: triple the open world of regular mmos!
Heh, nice try, but no. If that were the case, then SWTOR would have 2 open worlds too with its class quests, or LotrO with its book quests.
aw man you got me there hehe
What I meant to say is its actually FOUR open worlds if you count arenas also ;p
Lol. Hehe.
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Ffa pvp does work in SANDBOX games like eve & uo where you have a whole economic and guild advancement system to support it. With a themepark like wow its just a lazy substitute for real pvp content
Disagree. I've had some great fun with open world PvP in themepark MMO's, especially with the typical chaotic randomness that PvP encounters and events could have in such situations. Tarren Mill was a great example of it, just like incursions in Aion or ambushes in AoC's Kheshatta. Different people, different tastes, I guess.
WHich tends to become static after players figure out those goals and objectives and learn the best way to complete them, in many cases they become anti-PVP in that players avoid fights and just rush objectives that are unguarded.
How can these objectives and goals become static wen you have multiple means of acheiving objectives and goals combined with thousands of combinations of players with thousands of combinations of builds. You introduce an infintive amount of choices.
The variety is far more than standing in a bush near a quest area to kill players.
I'm not antipvp.
PVPers need to realize that pvp is a seperate game, a seperate genre closer to FPS's than RPGs and a game built on cooperation and teamwork could not have it in the main game. It needs to be in a seperate area.
If you are going to have pvp in agame the whole game has to be about open world pvp.
I understand if the post is only about gw2. but pvp isnt a seperate game in Faction based games.
I'll be okay with open world PVP the day someone can show me a Role Playing GAme (single player) where a large evil is overtaking the world and your own party begins to attack one another on a consistant basis.
"There's a huge dragon killing villagers"
Other Guy
I'm attacking you for your phat loot.
There are actually places on Earth like that. Think of it as tribes/gangs prtoecting turf and needs. That said, I'm not expecting this in GW2, never was sold that way.
The Mists are exactly like The Barrens, Arathi Highlands, or Darkshore in WoW and Hutta, Korriban or Tatooine in SWTOR. In one game it is called zones, in the other it is called planets. You can call it what ever you want but you're just arguing symantics. Instances are different from zones and the World vs World in GW2 is in an open zone, hence open world.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
The Mists are exactly like The Barrens, Arathi Highlands, or Darkshore in WoW and Hutta, Korriban or Tatooine in SWTOR. In one game it is called zones, in the other it is called planets. You can call it what ever you want but you're just arguing symantics. Instances are different from zones and the World vs World in GW2 is in an open zone, hence open world.
Hmm, open pvp doesn't mean open world. Open PVP means that just about at anytime you have the option to PVP with limited exception. So TOR isn't exactly open PVP either. Zoned PVP is not open PVP. IE: Areas designated as PVP areas.
Second when did this definition change (open world) Zoned used to be the opposite of what an open world was? Open World = Vanguard, zoned = TOR, AOC, EQ2, GW2 etc..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Second when did this definition change (open world) Zoned used to be the opposite of what an open world was? Open World = Vanguard, zoned = TOR, AOC, EQ2, GW2 etc..
Since introduction of instances(WoW) in pve and pvp, since that time everything not instanced is as good as open world.. at least almost. -> Closed(Instanced), Open(Everything not instanced)
We like to have it binary. Good/Evil. True/False....
The Mists are exactly like The Barrens, Arathi Highlands, or Darkshore in WoW and Hutta, Korriban or Tatooine in SWTOR. In one game it is called zones, in the other it is called planets. You can call it what ever you want but you're just arguing symantics. Instances are different from zones and the World vs World in GW2 is in an open zone, hence open world.
? Maybe by your definition, but definitely not according to how most other MMO gamers see open world PvP. You may argue semantics all you like, but The Mists is definitely not the same as The Barrens or Darkshore in many ways.
The Mists is something different, something new. Describing it with old terms that are used for different things than what the Mists is, is just an ill fit.
The Mists are exactly like The Barrens, Arathi Highlands, or Darkshore in WoW and Hutta, Korriban or Tatooine in SWTOR. In one game it is called zones, in the other it is called planets. You can call it what ever you want but you're just arguing symantics. Instances are different from zones and the World vs World in GW2 is in an open zone, hence open world.
I think that's incredible unfair to label it as such. You are right about the semantics argument, but I think they do exactly different things.
Mists (WvW part) is massive, and is the "battleground" of 3 seperate servers fighting over a 2-week persistency, that gives server wide benefits.
Me going to the Barrens or Korriban will not allow me to do that. I am not an expert on WvW but it's so freaking big, that... I don't know how it will actually be like, but it looks nothing like i've seen before since DaOC and old school planetside: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95MTUmmyFDM&feature=relmfu
Few AAA MMOs with any form of World PvP allow PvP in all zones in the game. There are usually safe zones and contested zones. In GW2, the designers really wanted to focus on a cooperative PvE environment that by design makes working together with others easy and greifing others difficult. They also wanted to have all races united against a greater foe, rather than have racially based factional content. However, they still wanted to have a game mode that would provide an outlet for people who enjoy PvP in a vast, open environment, while also tapping into the Realm vs. Realm objective based PvP seen in Dark Age of Camelot.
Putting that all together, they got World vs. World (vs. World). Objective based PvP that spans four massive, open world zones, containing fortresses, towers, keeps, villages, resource camps and even PvE content, including Dynamic Events.
I find this solution a superior one. There are vast landscapes upon which to carry out PvP in an open environment. There are clear objectives for organized play, but plenty to do for smaller groups. There is PvE content here, but it isn't obtrusive to the PvP based objectives. We get three faction warfare, with out pitting players on the same server against each other. Success in WvW brings server wide buffs that carry over into the PvE environment.
Players literally get to have their cake and eat it as well.
The area of the GW2 universe dedicated to WvW may be a smaller percentage than in other games, where 2/3 or more of the environments may be flagged for PvP. but this concentration of action into four zones has many advantages for most PvP players, with the largest exception being those who enjoy world PvP just for the opportunity to grief other players.
One point I'd raise is that some games designed around a world PvP element have stated that their overall world size and zone design were dictated by the desire to make world PvP a focus. Developers for both Aion and Rift have stated that the games featured fewer zones in order to ensure the desired concentration of players to support meaningful world PVP.
Personally, I would rather have a massive world with dozens of zones, but with PvP designated for only a handful of those zones, vs. a game with a dozen or fewer zones where the majority of the world is open for PvP.
So, yes, GW2 is almost 3 games in one, with a lobby system and arena based Competative PvP, plus essentially two connected, but seperate, open worlds; The main PvE world with over 30 zones, (including the capitol cities), and the WvWvW "world", with four massive zones designed specifically for factional, objective based PvP in a very open environment.
And no, 4 WvW zones, however nice they are, I personally don't consider equal to an entire open world with PvP, it simply is a different gaming experience.
...
why wouldn't you want a different gaming experiance when you buy a different game?
...
the simple issue hardcore PvPers have is that GW2 isn't a PvP/hardcore game, it is a slightly beyond casual game, and only that through competitive (bracketed) PVP. there is PvE/PvP through the Wv2 but the rest- the majority of the game- is a casual PvE game. basically a collaborative multiplayer game with interactive 'lobby' and autogrouping.
they did this tripple style environment to have a single cohesive and coherent player community of casual gamer types. with the capacity for players to explore and play the entire game.
It appears theyve dont a wonderful job of maximising content for players.
if you look at daoc ( the model gw2 is based on) its nearly the same thing, with the exception that it only requires a third of the content. So.. anything they do make equals more for everyone.
I agree with the premise, but I still have to say that sounds like a pretty imaginative form of spin to me. The mistake you make is thinking everyone who wants true open world PVP wants to gank PVE oriented players. For me it's not that at all, I simply like the feeling it creates knowing you can be attacked anywhere at anytime. So in a sense it's not that I want to gank, it's that I want to be ganked at times.
So like he said.....stay in the PvP zones and level there. Grow up, so to speak, in V8 and around only other PvP'ers. I'm sure you'll get ganked plenty.
This, or maybe the fact people just enjoy fighting humans rather than retarded ass AI? Could be..
No worse than all the PvE players who cry about dungeons and not big enough raids. Because you know, MMOs are about grinding and progression /sarcasm.
And no, 4 WvW zones, however nice they are, I personally don't consider equal to an entire open world with PvP, it simply is a different gaming experience.
...
why wouldn't you want a different gaming experiance when you buy a different game?
...
the simple issue hardcore PvPers have is that GW2 isn't a PvP/hardcore game, it is a slightly beyond casual game, and only that through competitive (bracketed) PVP. there is PvE/PvP through the Wv2 but the rest- the majority of the game- is a casual PvE game. basically a collaborative multiplayer game with interactive 'lobby' and autogrouping.
they did this tripple style environment to have a single cohesive and coherent player community of casual gamer types. with the capacity for players to explore and play the entire game.
Aren't you really just saying it's "casual only" because they put everyone on an equal playing field where skill is what matters most, since armor isn't pimpdaddy gear like in WoW and stats don't broadly separate people? Oh wait....that means you have to have SKILL to win, not just badass armor. How is this casual again?
Aren't you really just saying it's "casual only" because they put everyone on an equal playing field where skill is what matters most, since armor isn't pimpdaddy gear like in WoW and stats don't broadly separate people? Oh wait....that means you have to have SKILL to win, not just badass armor. How is this casual again?
Why people get offended as if 'casual' is a dirty word
GW2 game is designed to attract more casual players. Whether PVP in it is going to be hardcore or casual depends upon your play style.
Aren't you really just saying it's "casual only" because they put everyone on an equal playing field where skill is what matters most, since armor isn't pimpdaddy gear like in WoW and stats don't broadly separate people? Oh wait....that means you have to have SKILL to win, not just badass armor. How is this casual again?
Maybe because hardcore would mean you'd need to almost give up what's left of your real life to be able to raid and raid and raid to get the shinies to pwn everybody with. Without the "hardcore" PvE requirement (not that I consider wasting all your time on a game much of an achievement), it becomes more open to casual gamers.
The hardcore PvE guilds will probably dislike GW2 for this, but they're the minority. The gamers that do not want to build their ilfe around a game, will be all the happpier.
The hardcore PvE guilds will probably dislike GW2 for this, but they're the minority. The gamers that do not want to build their ilfe around a game, will be all the happpier.
IN my experience on a typical case by case basis the games that cater to the "minority" Are on an overall level better games. It's when studios start trying to cater to everyone where most big problems begin. They tend to get distracted by inclusion, and skimp on cohersion.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And no, 4 WvW zones, however nice they are, I personally don't consider equal to an entire open world with PvP, it simply is a different gaming experience.
...
why wouldn't you want a different gaming experiance when you buy a different game?
...
the simple issue hardcore PvPers have is that GW2 isn't a PvP/hardcore game, it is a slightly beyond casual game, and only that through competitive (bracketed) PVP. there is PvE/PvP through the Wv2 but the rest- the majority of the game- is a casual PvE game. basically a collaborative multiplayer game with interactive 'lobby' and autogrouping.
they did this tripple style environment to have a single cohesive and coherent player community of casual gamer types. with the capacity for players to explore and play the entire game.
Aren't you really just saying it's "casual only" because they put everyone on an equal playing field where skill is what matters most, since armor isn't pimpdaddy gear like in WoW and stats don't broadly separate people? Oh wait....that means you have to have SKILL to win, not just badass armor. How is this casual again?
First of all, as ppl before me said. Casual dont mean evil or bad, it just means for a wider audience, and it also means implicit not so complex.
And yes, GW2 as DAoC were casual pvp, from the standpoint of hardcore pvp players. Because they reduced the supporting economy, they reduced, or encapsulated the effects on the general gameplay, and it is easier to join.
Look at EvE, it was never easy to come into EvE, it does have a harsh learning curve, but it is at the same a lot more complex as GW2 or DAoC about PvP. And if a so called MMO hardcore pvp player talks about pvp, he talks not only about combat, he talks about the complete package. Combat, economic warfare, territorial warfare and all that stuff. And in this regard GW2 is casual, and i guess it is also casual in the pve part.
And about structured PvP.. this is a complete different kind of PvP, it is solely about combat.. and as a PvP player i have to say, that for this kind of pvp i usually prefer normal multiplayer games(FPS, RTS), because they tend to be better than any MMO Battleground experience. And in for this kind of PvP hardcore means again something completly different.
I agree with the premise, but I still have to say that sounds like a pretty imaginative form of spin to me.
The mistake you make is thinking everyone who
wants true open world PVP wants to gank PVE
oriented players. For me it's not that at all, I simply
like the feeling it creates knowing you can be
attacked anywhere at anytime. So in a sense it's
not that I want to gank, it's that I want to be ganked
at times.
*Pumps up letters, bigger and biger and a little bigger still. Then makes them RED!*
Can't stress that enough. And nicely said.
I am so tired of that very misconception; time and time again open-world-pvp-dislikers throw that up: "you just want to gank lowbies", "you are a coward because you just want easy kills", etc. Ad nauseam.
While it's just like you say: it's about the thrill of an unpredictable kind of danger out in the open world: a kind of danger without set parameters like AI behavior and agro range: only players can add that.
Next to that its about providing an endless chapter of extra content to a game world: one day you might help some lowbies cleanse zone A from gankers, the next day you are laying siege to an enemy town in zone B, the day after someone of which you suspected was out to gank you let you live instead and even waved and smiled to you, etc.
You won't feel that thrill of player danger in the main game world yet when you venture to the Eternal Battlegrounds you are fully expecting it. There's not much unpredictibility there.
In my eyes WvW is great but it's still a substitute.
The only redeeming excuse to me in that separation of worlds is the fact that they pitch servers against eachother and you don't really want enemy server populations overrunning your entire main gameworld. I can see that.
... But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked a PVP ruleset in addition: cooperate with your server buddies in the Mists and stab eachother in the back as soon as its about your hometurf again. I would have loved a server like that.
I very much prefer having to keep my wits about me and eyes in my back when I am out picking flowers in the main game world. Lotro essentially has the same (but weaker) model: "monsterplay" in a dedicated area. In two months or so I left, bored about the predictable main gameworld.
I agree with the premise, but I still have to say that sounds like a pretty imaginative form of spin to me. The mistake you make is thinking everyone who wants true open world PVP wants to gank PVE oriented players. For me it's not that at all, I simply like the feeling it creates knowing you can be attacked anywhere at anytime. So in a sense it's not that I want to gank, it's that I want to be ganked at times.
I definitely enjoy the extra dynamic and intensity that comes with going about your pve business while some same level enemies are nearby also going about theirs. The possibility of getting ambushed or performing an ambush gets the adrenaline pumping. I do hate, however, when it turns into a game of logging off and switching to main characters to come in and stomp down a helpless level 24 character. Then that person does the same; then guild members are called in, and the snowballing commences. I understand some players like even this aspect, just not me.
To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing a completely open world pvp game that utilizes GW2's zone level reduction feature, making it impossible for high levels to totally dominate a lower level character in a given zone. This would likely make switching to mains irrelevant, and would place the focus back on actual real pvp battles between existing characters in the zone.
I agree with the premise, but I still have to say that sounds like a pretty imaginative form of spin to me.
The mistake you make is thinking everyone who
wants true open world PVP wants to gank PVE
oriented players. For me it's not that at all, I simply
like the feeling it creates knowing you can be
attacked anywhere at anytime. So in a sense it's
not that I want to gank, it's that I want to be ganked
at times.
*Pumps up letters, bigger and biger and a little bigger still. Then makes them RED!*
Can't stress that enough. And nicely said.
I am so tired of that very misconception; time and time again open-world-pvp-dislikers throw that up: "you just want to gank lowbies", "you are a coward because you just want easy kills", etc. Ad nauseam.
While it's just like you say: it's about the thrill of an unpredictable kind of danger out in the open world: a kind of danger without set parameters like AI behavior and agro range: only players can add that.
Next to that its about providing an endless chapter of extra content to a game world: one day you might help some lowbies cleanse zone A from gankers, the next day you are laying siege to an enemy town in zone B, the day after someone of which you suspected was out to gank you let you live instead and even waved and smiled to you, etc.
You won't feel that thrill of player danger in the main game world yet when you venture to the Eternal Battlegrounds you are fully expecting it. There's not much unpredictibility there.
In my eyes WvW is great but it's still a substitute.
The only redeeming excuse to me in that separation of worlds is the fact that they pitch servers against eachother and you don't really want enemy server populations overrunning your entire main gameworld. I can see that.
... But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked a PVP ruleset in addition: cooperate with your server buddies in the Mists and stab eachother in the back as soon as its about your hometurf again. I would have loved a server like that.
I very much prefer having to keep my wits about me and eyes in my back when I am out picking flowers in the main game world. Lotro essentially has the same (but weaker) model: "monsterplay" in a dedicated area. In two months or so I left, bored about the predictable main gameworld.
its not a misconception when it happens in EVERY free for all PVP game... of course there are honorable people who like it as you do but that doesn't mean that there aren't more jerks out there ganking people trying to enjoy themselves.
Comments
No experience in WAR or TOR I take it? I'd find it odd if you had and didn't seem to know what I was talking about.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Lol. Hehe.
Disagree. I've had some great fun with open world PvP in themepark MMO's, especially with the typical chaotic randomness that PvP encounters and events could have in such situations. Tarren Mill was a great example of it, just like incursions in Aion or ambushes in AoC's Kheshatta. Different people, different tastes, I guess.
I understand if the post is only about gw2. but pvp isnt a seperate game in Faction based games.
There are actually places on Earth like that. Think of it as tribes/gangs prtoecting turf and needs. That said, I'm not expecting this in GW2, never was sold that way.
GW2 is actually three games you play with the same character, plus a PvP lobby.
The Mists are exactly like The Barrens, Arathi Highlands, or Darkshore in WoW and Hutta, Korriban or Tatooine in SWTOR. In one game it is called zones, in the other it is called planets. You can call it what ever you want but you're just arguing symantics. Instances are different from zones and the World vs World in GW2 is in an open zone, hence open world.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Hmm, open pvp doesn't mean open world. Open PVP means that just about at anytime you have the option to PVP with limited exception. So TOR isn't exactly open PVP either. Zoned PVP is not open PVP. IE: Areas designated as PVP areas.
Second when did this definition change (open world) Zoned used to be the opposite of what an open world was? Open World = Vanguard, zoned = TOR, AOC, EQ2, GW2 etc..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Since introduction of instances(WoW) in pve and pvp, since that time everything not instanced is as good as open world.. at least almost. -> Closed(Instanced), Open(Everything not instanced)
We like to have it binary. Good/Evil. True/False....
? Maybe by your definition, but definitely not according to how most other MMO gamers see open world PvP. You may argue semantics all you like, but The Mists is definitely not the same as The Barrens or Darkshore in many ways.
The Mists is something different, something new. Describing it with old terms that are used for different things than what the Mists is, is just an ill fit.
Definitely not something new. If anything, people are excited because it is an evolution of DAoC's system.
I think that's incredible unfair to label it as such. You are right about the semantics argument, but I think they do exactly different things.
Mists (WvW part) is massive, and is the "battleground" of 3 seperate servers fighting over a 2-week persistency, that gives server wide benefits.
Me going to the Barrens or Korriban will not allow me to do that. I am not an expert on WvW but it's so freaking big, that... I don't know how it will actually be like, but it looks nothing like i've seen before since DaOC and old school planetside: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95MTUmmyFDM&feature=relmfu
Few AAA MMOs with any form of World PvP allow PvP in all zones in the game. There are usually safe zones and contested zones. In GW2, the designers really wanted to focus on a cooperative PvE environment that by design makes working together with others easy and greifing others difficult. They also wanted to have all races united against a greater foe, rather than have racially based factional content. However, they still wanted to have a game mode that would provide an outlet for people who enjoy PvP in a vast, open environment, while also tapping into the Realm vs. Realm objective based PvP seen in Dark Age of Camelot.
Putting that all together, they got World vs. World (vs. World). Objective based PvP that spans four massive, open world zones, containing fortresses, towers, keeps, villages, resource camps and even PvE content, including Dynamic Events.
I find this solution a superior one. There are vast landscapes upon which to carry out PvP in an open environment. There are clear objectives for organized play, but plenty to do for smaller groups. There is PvE content here, but it isn't obtrusive to the PvP based objectives. We get three faction warfare, with out pitting players on the same server against each other. Success in WvW brings server wide buffs that carry over into the PvE environment.
Players literally get to have their cake and eat it as well.
The area of the GW2 universe dedicated to WvW may be a smaller percentage than in other games, where 2/3 or more of the environments may be flagged for PvP. but this concentration of action into four zones has many advantages for most PvP players, with the largest exception being those who enjoy world PvP just for the opportunity to grief other players.
One point I'd raise is that some games designed around a world PvP element have stated that their overall world size and zone design were dictated by the desire to make world PvP a focus. Developers for both Aion and Rift have stated that the games featured fewer zones in order to ensure the desired concentration of players to support meaningful world PVP.
Personally, I would rather have a massive world with dozens of zones, but with PvP designated for only a handful of those zones, vs. a game with a dozen or fewer zones where the majority of the world is open for PvP.
So, yes, GW2 is almost 3 games in one, with a lobby system and arena based Competative PvP, plus essentially two connected, but seperate, open worlds; The main PvE world with over 30 zones, (including the capitol cities), and the WvWvW "world", with four massive zones designed specifically for factional, objective based PvP in a very open environment.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
why wouldn't you want a different gaming experiance when you buy a different game?
...
the simple issue hardcore PvPers have is that GW2 isn't a PvP/hardcore game, it is a slightly beyond casual game, and only that through competitive (bracketed) PVP. there is PvE/PvP through the Wv2 but the rest- the majority of the game- is a casual PvE game. basically a collaborative multiplayer game with interactive 'lobby' and autogrouping.
they did this tripple style environment to have a single cohesive and coherent player community of casual gamer types. with the capacity for players to explore and play the entire game.
It appears theyve dont a wonderful job of maximising content for players.
if you look at daoc ( the model gw2 is based on) its nearly the same thing, with the exception that it only requires a third of the content. So.. anything they do make equals more for everyone.
very smart in my opinion.
This, or maybe the fact people just enjoy fighting humans rather than retarded ass AI? Could be..
No worse than all the PvE players who cry about dungeons and not big enough raids. Because you know, MMOs are about grinding and progression /sarcasm.
Aren't you really just saying it's "casual only" because they put everyone on an equal playing field where skill is what matters most, since armor isn't pimpdaddy gear like in WoW and stats don't broadly separate people? Oh wait....that means you have to have SKILL to win, not just badass armor. How is this casual again?
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Somewhere, somehow, the term "casual" became misunderstood......
Why people get offended as if 'casual' is a dirty word
GW2 game is designed to attract more casual players. Whether PVP in it is going to be hardcore or casual depends upon your play style.
Maybe because hardcore would mean you'd need to almost give up what's left of your real life to be able to raid and raid and raid to get the shinies to pwn everybody with. Without the "hardcore" PvE requirement (not that I consider wasting all your time on a game much of an achievement), it becomes more open to casual gamers.
The hardcore PvE guilds will probably dislike GW2 for this, but they're the minority. The gamers that do not want to build their ilfe around a game, will be all the happpier.
There's a lot more than that being revised as of late.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
IN my experience on a typical case by case basis the games that cater to the "minority" Are on an overall level better games. It's when studios start trying to cater to everyone where most big problems begin. They tend to get distracted by inclusion, and skimp on cohersion.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
First of all, as ppl before me said. Casual dont mean evil or bad, it just means for a wider audience, and it also means implicit not so complex.
And yes, GW2 as DAoC were casual pvp, from the standpoint of hardcore pvp players. Because they reduced the supporting economy, they reduced, or encapsulated the effects on the general gameplay, and it is easier to join.
Look at EvE, it was never easy to come into EvE, it does have a harsh learning curve, but it is at the same a lot more complex as GW2 or DAoC about PvP. And if a so called MMO hardcore pvp player talks about pvp, he talks not only about combat, he talks about the complete package. Combat, economic warfare, territorial warfare and all that stuff. And in this regard GW2 is casual, and i guess it is also casual in the pve part.
And about structured PvP.. this is a complete different kind of PvP, it is solely about combat.. and as a PvP player i have to say, that for this kind of pvp i usually prefer normal multiplayer games(FPS, RTS), because they tend to be better than any MMO Battleground experience. And in for this kind of PvP hardcore means again something completly different.
*Pumps up letters, bigger and biger and a little bigger still. Then makes them RED!*
Can't stress that enough. And nicely said.
I am so tired of that very misconception; time and time again open-world-pvp-dislikers throw that up: "you just want to gank lowbies", "you are a coward because you just want easy kills", etc. Ad nauseam.
While it's just like you say: it's about the thrill of an unpredictable kind of danger out in the open world: a kind of danger without set parameters like AI behavior and agro range: only players can add that.
Next to that its about providing an endless chapter of extra content to a game world: one day you might help some lowbies cleanse zone A from gankers, the next day you are laying siege to an enemy town in zone B, the day after someone of which you suspected was out to gank you let you live instead and even waved and smiled to you, etc.
You won't feel that thrill of player danger in the main game world yet when you venture to the Eternal Battlegrounds you are fully expecting it. There's not much unpredictibility there.
In my eyes WvW is great but it's still a substitute.
The only redeeming excuse to me in that separation of worlds is the fact that they pitch servers against eachother and you don't really want enemy server populations overrunning your entire main gameworld. I can see that.
... But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked a PVP ruleset in addition: cooperate with your server buddies in the Mists and stab eachother in the back as soon as its about your hometurf again. I would have loved a server like that.
I very much prefer having to keep my wits about me and eyes in my back when I am out picking flowers in the main game world. Lotro essentially has the same (but weaker) model: "monsterplay" in a dedicated area. In two months or so I left, bored about the predictable main gameworld.
My brand new bloggity blog.
I definitely enjoy the extra dynamic and intensity that comes with going about your pve business while some same level enemies are nearby also going about theirs. The possibility of getting ambushed or performing an ambush gets the adrenaline pumping. I do hate, however, when it turns into a game of logging off and switching to main characters to come in and stomp down a helpless level 24 character. Then that person does the same; then guild members are called in, and the snowballing commences. I understand some players like even this aspect, just not me.
To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing a completely open world pvp game that utilizes GW2's zone level reduction feature, making it impossible for high levels to totally dominate a lower level character in a given zone. This would likely make switching to mains irrelevant, and would place the focus back on actual real pvp battles between existing characters in the zone.
its not a misconception when it happens in EVERY free for all PVP game... of course there are honorable people who like it as you do but that doesn't mean that there aren't more jerks out there ganking people trying to enjoy themselves.