I never said being max level makes you a good player
It seemed to be what you were implying initially.
I said good players strive to get to max level quickly.
Still too much of a generalization, some good players like me for instance strive to get everything done in the game on their ride to max level in order to be extremely good when I finally get there. Its all a matter of preference.
That doesn't mean there aren't bad players who might level quickly as well.
It may be a generalization but it is an accurate one. I know the ego is fragile for many gamers, so they'd like to think they are the exception to the rule. "Well I am a good player and I don't like leveling at warp speed!" No one wants to admit they are bad... :P
Hey some good players like leveling at warp speed, some don't. I can say I'm a good player with confidence because I've seen myself grow from being crap and being kicked to creating builds that make the people I fight ask for what I'm running.
You may think that all good players have your mentality but that would be a very ignorant thought.
I never said being max level makes you a good player
It seemed to be what you were implying initially.
I said good players strive to get to max level quickly.
Still too much of a generalization, some good players like me for instance strive to get everything done in the game on their ride to max level in order to be extremely good when I finally get there. Its all a matter of preference.
That doesn't mean there aren't bad players who might level quickly as well.
It may be a generalization but it is an accurate one. I know the ego is fragile for many gamers, so they'd like to think they are the exception to the rule. "Well I am a good player and I don't like leveling at warp speed!" No one wants to admit they are bad... :P
Hey some good players like leveling at warp speed, some don't. I can say I'm a good player with confidence because I've seen myself grow from being crap and being kicked to creating builds that make the people I fight ask for what I'm running.
You may think that all good players have your mentality but that would be a very ignorant thought.
It's called being a min/maxer. We play to get stuff done.
And guess what, when people grow bored of the low level stuff you need to have a strong endgame to follow it up. Everything anet has said and shown us indicates a weaker easy-mode type end game, and guess what, that will also get stale and boring eventually because it is so easy.
You base this solely upon your precious 25-man or 40-man raids not being mentioned for GW2.
It's true that that gameplay mechanism is what is keeping WoW players in WoW for months after months, even if they've grown bored of everything else in WoW. Personally, I find it a horrible gameplay mechanism to mainly keep playing MMO's, and I hope I'll see as less of the raiding, gear and gearscore fixated crowd as possible in GW2. Let them stick to WoW please.
Besides, the world vs world PvP where hundreds and even thousands of players can play to battle over castles, settlements and strategic advantages sound like a great endgame experience already to me.
For the rest, ANet hasn't revealed everything yet, so it's a bit early to say that we've seen all there is to GW2. Lol, we haven't even played the game yet. More to learn next week of some basic gameplay.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
What makes "Good" and "Bad" players is an opinion, to each their own.
Do I think GW2 cares about how you feel about end game? Not as much as other MMOs - Why? Because it isn't subscription based. They are expecting folks to buy their game, play for a while, wander off when bored and come back when new stuff is released.
Back on topic - I don't mind that the dynamic event system isn't fully persistent - the fact that they've said the different chains have different triggers (some even environment based as in triggered by weather), different timing, different branching, etc indicates to me that there's a good chance when I wander through an area something will have changed from the last time I wandered through it.
I also like the fact that we will all have a Personal Story, though I do hope it is optional (I think I read that it was) because sometimes I'm a major quest rebel and refuse to complete them - there again I don't always do my real life chores either.
I think the highlight so far for me about GW2 is that it appears that there will be multiple choices for playing the game. It's kind of weird to maybe see some light at the end of the funnel.
Back on topic - I don't mind that the dynamic event system isn't fully persistent - the fact that they've said the different chains have different triggers (some even environment based as in triggered by weather), different timing, different branching, etc indicates to me that there's a good chance when I wander through an area something will have changed from the last time I wandered through it.
There are a lot of events going on in an area, crisscrossing eachother. The chance that an area will be exactly the same as the last time you went through it are slim: maybe that village will still be there the same as it was the last time you visited, but then there will be a crazy shaman that let loose an earth elemental upon the area that wasn't there the time before. A next time the village will be conquered by dredges or centaurs, the elemental is nowhere to be seen but instead a roaming band of bandits can be seen terrorising the neighbourhood, etc.
They had already 1500+ events implemented, and ANet intended to have thousands of these events implemented ingame.
I also like the fact that we will all have a Personal Story, though I do hope it is optional (I think I read that it was) because sometimes I'm a major quest rebel and refuse to complete them - there again I don't always do my real life chores either.
They stated that you could just ignore it, even just level to level cap by fighting in the World vs World areas.
I think the highlight so far for me about GW2 is that it appears that there will be multiple choices for playing the game. It's kind of weird to maybe see some light at the end of the funnel.
Heh, I have that same feeling. With MMO's upcoming like a SW:TOR, TERA, Rift, FFXIV, GW2, TSW, WoD, Vindictus and others it feels like the MMO market finally gets an energizing boost, with enough variety to cater to all kinds of MMO gamers.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Heh, I have that same feeling. With MMO's upcoming like a SW:TOR, TERA, Rift, FFXIV, GW2, TSW, WoD, Vindictus and others it feels like the MMO market finally gets an energizing boost, with enough variety to cater to all kinds of MMO gamers.
Yeah - a bit frustrated with 2010, but really looking forward to 2011. Heck even the games that are already out have not released much content. Without new content all MMOs just become an inventory management exercise.
People will ultimately grow bored of every quest, mission or event.
Compared with regular quests though, the Dynamic Event system provide more longevity and variety than regular quests that never change and have no longer term consequence on the game world.
It also makes the MMO gameworld feel more alive than in other MMO's, where the environment hardly changes at all.
And guess what, when people grow bored of the low level stuff you need to have a strong endgame to follow it up. Everything anet has said and shown us indicates a weaker easy-mode type end game, and guess what, that will also get stale and boring eventually because it is so easy.
BTW, they haven't even answered about the "end game" content their gonna have, because they might still implementing that in the game. GW1 was one of the games that had more to do in what you call "end-game" (I just call it lvl cap), because lvls 1-20 were to learn more about the game or try different class combinations. From lvl cap forward, thats where the game really started.
Now in GW2, they have a system that allows leveling up to be much easier (instead of doing lvl 79-80 in +6h gameplay, like WoW). Do you really think they would do this and forget about content when they reach lvl cap? Do you still think that after knowing they worked a lot on it in GW1???
They already said that having levels is just a way to feel the progress of your character, and they changed the lvl cap to lvl 80 in GW2 because a lot of people would feel like the lvl 20 in GW1 was too low, or left because they though "reach lvl cap so game is over" (which was wrong). They care about the content of the game more than "Ping, got another level/reached lvl cap".
I think you're statement that it will get bored in "eng-game" is right to most games already released and still in development, but saying it against A.net is like...... making "All-in" in poker, having only a pair of 3's and playing against 5 players in that turn.
If you've read the articles you know their main pve end-game is going to be 5man dungeons designed for high level characters.
And based on everything we know of anet (gw1) they often have a severe lack of content (gw1 had little to no pve depth whatsoever)
Do you think they are magically going to deliver more endgame content than pay to play games? You've already seen them cut corners on other "features" under the reasoning that they are not a subscription based game and simply do not have the staff to fully expand on those features.
A good example being the dynamic events. If a monstrously funded company like blizzard was tackling dynamic events, they could script epic events that leave a more permanent mark on the world, because anet doesn't have all that staff, they have settled for cyclical events that return to previous states when left unchecked.
Sure this may be satisfactory for the average gamer, but it is also a clear indication that they really don't want to push the envelope they just want to be satisfactory.
If they really were adamant about being innovative and ground breaking, you would see them put more effort into things like dynamic events and truly have a world you can leave a mark on. Not just a personal instanced storyline that you can change for yourself but has no relevance to the persistent world.
It's like they have seduced people with these features, but they aren't actually going to fully develop those features, they are content with satisfactory, as opposed to superb.
If you've read the articles you know their main pve end-game is going to be 5man dungeons designed for high level characters. And based on everything we know of anet (gw1) they often have a severe lack of content (gw1 had little to no pve depth whatsoever) Do you think they are magically going to deliver more endgame content than pay to play games? You've already seen them cut corners on other "features" under the reasoning that they are not a subscription based game and simply do not have the staff to fully expand on those features. A good example being the dynamic events. If a monstrously funded company like blizzard was tackling dynamic events, they could script epic events that leave a more permanent mark on the world, because anet doesn't have all that staff, they have settled for cyclical events that return to previous states when left unchecked. Sure this may be satisfactory for the average gamer, but it is also a clear indication that they really don't want to push the envelope they just want to be satisfactory. If they really were adamant about being innovative and ground breaking, you would see them put more effort into things like dynamic events and truly have a world you can leave a mark on. Not just a personal instanced storyline that you can change for yourself but has no relevance to the persistent world. It's like they have seduced people with these features, but they aren't actually going to fully develop those features, they are content with satisfactory, as opposed to superb.
OK let's not get another topic locked people. Robert wasn't flamming people or even posting baseless claims. He's trying to have a nice civil discussion/debate in this thread. Let's keep the other thread out of this one.
Now on topic:
It's natural that people will eventually grow bored of the events. But the dynamic events, based on the information we have at this point, sounds like it will last longer than the simple quest system. I think they are banking on all the stuff they implement lasting until they have an expansion ready to come out. Plus we have to remember, the first game is always the "test game" so to speak. I expect to see much greater control over the dynamic event system in following expansions, with them starting to test the limits of the system they created.
For those afraid of a rick roll, its mostly below;
"Some players out there did have questions about the extent to which players’ actions have a lasting effect on the world around them. For example, when Ree says in the video that players can permanently change their world, she’s talking about making a permanent impact on a player’s personal story, which is reflected in instances, particularly a player’s home instance.
You know what? Lead Designers Eric Flannum and Colin Johanson are really good at explaining stuff like this. Let’s ask them!
Colin: Right, when Ree refers to, “players will kill a boss and they won’t re-spawn 10 minutes later,” she is saying when playing through your personal story line if you kill a boss, that boss will stay dead and your personal story will reflect this. It’s not really physically possible to make each dynamic event permanent, because the game needs enough content for everyone to play, and we don’t have 10,000 people making content for Guild Wars 2, event chains need to cycle and events need to repeat to ensure players have enough to do in the persistent game world. Our goal with events is to ensure that when an event ends, you feel like it actually has some sort of outcome on the game world for all players, if even for a short period of time, where traditional MMO quest in persistent areas generally have no affect on the world.
Eric: Thanks, Dave. Yeah, in the video Ree is speaking about the player’s personal story, whereas Colin is talking about dynamic events. We like to think of personal story choices being permanent and dynamic event choices being persistent. The difference being persistent choices will remain until something comes along and changes them. So for instance, in the personal story you may choose to let an NPC die, that NPC is likely to be an important story NPC that the player feels some attachment to, their death will be permanent and will have repercussions on the characters story. This would be reflected in instances. In the persistent world a dynamic event might result in an NPC being killed. This will be a more generic NPC like a merchant or a soldier who will likely be replaced once some other event takes place.
Great, thanks Eric and Colin! I hope that clears up any confusion out there.
We had a fantastic week at ArenaNet, and next week is going to be even better – we’re launching the world premiere of the hands-on, playable Guild Wars 2 demo at gamescom in Cologne, Germany. Keep watching this blog for up-to-date news and more GW2 goodness!"
I like btw how they've already implemented 1500+ of those Dynamic Events and intend to have thousands of those ingame.
Only reading this already sounds great:
Colin Johanson:If, on the other hand, players fail to destroy the army, it will establish a fort in friendly player territory. From there, the dredge will send shipments of troops and supplies to the fort from the main base while building up walls, turrets, and siege engines to help defend it. Enemy dredge forces will then begin to move out from their newly established fort to attack friendly player locations in the area, sending snipers out into the hills, sending assault team forces to capture friendly player villages, and trying to smash down friendly fortifications with massive dredge walkers. All of these events continue to cascade out into further chains of events where cause and effect is directly related to the player's actions.
For example, if the players do not mobilize to stop the dredge snipers, they'll begin to shoot down all the villagers and merchants in nearby friendly villages. If they fail to stop the dredge assault teams from capturing a village, players will need to lead a force to help liberate the town and free the villagers. All of this content is derived from a single initial event - the dredge army marching through the map
That's just one event, and then you have 1500+ of all kinds of events. I'm certainly interested to read the gameplay reports from the Gamescom later this week.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
So basically, here's how the event system will work: If you choose not to save a village from centaurs, it WILL be destroyed. For everybody. However, at some point in the future the chain will eventually "reset" (the centaurs are pushed back), and the village will be rebuilt. The event chain has an oppurtunity to happen again at that point. Makes sense?
event chains are more like tug o war, if you fail to save the town. The town will probably turn into a centaur encampment. Creating a new mission to destroy the centaur encampment and drive them out. if you don't drive them out they will probably move on to another town, starting a new dynamic event. if you succeed the town villagers return slowly rebuilding the town, probably dynamic events to get them supplies to rebuild.
One thing is for certain dynamic events don't ever just reset, They will always take some kind of player action.
If you've read the articles you know their main pve end-game is going to be 5man dungeons designed for high level characters.And based on everything we know of anet (gw1) they often have a severe lack of content (gw1 had little to no pve depth whatsoever) Do you think they are magically going to deliver more endgame content than pay to play games? You've already seen them cut corners on other "features" under the reasoning that they are not a subscription based game and simply do not have the staff to fully expand on those features. A good example being the dynamic events. If a monstrously funded company like blizzard was tackling dynamic events, they could script epic events that leave a more permanent mark on the world, because anet doesn't have all that staff, they have settled for cyclical events that return to previous states when left unchecked. Sure this may be satisfactory for the average gamer, but it is also a clear indication that they really don't want to push the envelope they just want to be satisfactory. If they really were adamant about being innovative and ground breaking, you would see them put more effort into things like dynamic events and truly have a world you can leave a mark on. Not just a personal instanced storyline that you can change for yourself but has no relevance to the persistent world. It's like they have seduced people with these features, but they aren't actually going to fully develop those features, they are content with satisfactory, as opposed to superb.
"If you've read the articles you know their main pve end-game is going to be 5man dungeons designed for high level characters." Yeah, that's one of the things and they said there will be a lot more.
"And based on everything we know of anet (gw1) they often have a severe lack of content (gw1 had little to no pve depth whatsoever)" Oh really??? so gathering the best and unique skills from bosses and other mobs, doing most of the story telling, doing party instances in order to go through some cities and doing quests aren't PVE? and considering they had much more players in expansions although they had no more lvlsis a way to say they lack content???
About the rest you said, is just b******t! You really are a fan of WoW and Blizzard. Keep this in mind, A.net is working in innovating the mmorpg genre in their GW2 game, not Blizzard, so you can't say they would be better if you don't know if they could implement a thing never done before and still work well. You should know well that everything in WoW has already existed in earlier games, they just implemented it all and it worked well. Implement a feature and creating are completely different issues. And I don't know how could Blizzard do a better thing with Dynamic Event System, its just so full of innovation now that more could really lead the game to shreads (too much innovation in 1 feature is indeed dangerous). Truuly give a mark on the world??? They are doing it -.-". AND I've never heard about them cutting features because they aren't a subscription based game and i follow every detail about the game, so sorry mate, you're creating your own conclusions.
I like btw how they've already implemented 1500+ of those Dynamic Events and intend to have thousands of those ingame.
Only reading this already sounds great:
Colin Johanson:If, on the other hand, players fail to destroy the army, it will establish a fort in friendly player territory. From there, the dredge will send shipments of troops and supplies to the fort from the main base while building up walls, turrets, and siege engines to help defend it. Enemy dredge forces will then begin to move out from their newly established fort to attack friendly player locations in the area, sending snipers out into the hills, sending assault team forces to capture friendly player villages, and trying to smash down friendly fortifications with massive dredge walkers. All of these events continue to cascade out into further chains of events where cause and effect is directly related to the player's actions.
For example, if the players do not mobilize to stop the dredge snipers, they'll begin to shoot down all the villagers and merchants in nearby friendly villages. If they fail to stop the dredge assault teams from capturing a village, players will need to lead a force to help liberate the town and free the villagers. All of this content is derived from a single initial event - the dredge army marching through the map
That's just one event, and then you have 1500+ of all kinds of events. I'm certainly interested to read the gameplay reports from the Gamescom later this week.
I'm just waiting to see what the reviews from the demos will tell us too. I hope they deliver what they promised in the demos.
@Morcotulcon: Well, Robert is right in one thing: Blizzard has become terribly complacent, only reaping the benefits from all their treadmills in place. With the amount of money they're getting from WoW, the amount of amazing and spectacular gameplay should be enormous, they could even be completely revolutionary with all kinds of intriguing added features if they invested a solid sum back into WoW. Instead, WoW is what it is today, and in gameplay aspects slowly being surpassed by other MMO's.
Well, maybe CATA or Blizzard's next MMO will change that a bit, but WoW is certainly not looking as hot as some of the upcoming MMO's, like GW2.
But, that's for a discussion in another thread, this one was about the trailer.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Oh look.. we rescued a tiny village from being ramshackled by 30 centaurs! Yes! Celebration awaits!
*5 minutes later*
What the?! The centaurs, they're back..again?...
It's more like: "What the?! Another band... again? We should go to the centaur base that's sending them and destroy it, let's go! (while thinking, ah, so that's what that NPC guardscaptain was talking about, having heard of a camp of centaurs in the mountains and looking for volunteers to scout it)"
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
@Morcotulcon: Well, Robert is right in one thing: Blizzard has become terribly complacent, only reaping the benefits from all their treadmills in place. With the amount of money they're getting from WoW, the amount of amazing and spectacular gameplay should be enormous, they could even be completely revolutionary with all kinds of intriguing added features if they invested a solid sum back into WoW. Instead, WoW is what it is today, and in gameplay aspects slowly being surpassed by other MMO's.
Well, maybe CATA or Blizzard's next MMO will change that a bit, but WoW is certainly not looking as hot as some of the upcoming MMO's, like GW2.
But, that's for a discussion in another thread, this one was about the trailer.
I see your points... especially the last one lol You're right, I won't divert the conversation from the OP anymore.
While players won't always feel compelled to run around saving villages simply for the sake of "progressing", there's are bound to be situations in which you might still want to access the services located in one of these areas, even as a higher level player. I seem to recall a similar system at work in GW:Factions, wherein pvp battles determined your control of territory, which in turn determined whether you had access to particular merchants in an outpost. There's nothing to say that you couldn't return as an accomplished hero to save the starting zones at a later point in the game. (I find myself doing this often enough when there's world pvp in mmorpgs anyways, except that it usually involves clearing out a couple of high level enemy players, rather than armies of mobs).
Naturally, the balance issue here is in how quickly these events cycle. If they cycle too slowly, you might end up missing out on a lot of the content. If they cycle too fast, then it might get tiresome endlessly kicking out centaurs from your home turf. It would be nice if some of the higher level content had something of a trickle-down effect - namely, if an attack lead by higher level players to take out the centaur home base could cut down the frequency of attacks, or something like that. Either that, or having some sort of war effort going on which would enable players to recruit guards.
In any case, while experimenting like this is bound to create some unusual problems for the developers, I'm interested in seeing what solutions they'll devise to tackle them.
What Arenanet is attempting with Dynamic Events has never been done before in an MMO (it's been attempted somewhat with Warhammer Online's public quests, but those failed), and if they succeed it will revolutionize the market. if it fails... well.. it's still B2P, so I'll probably get it.
The original Guild Wars actually had a surprising amount of endgame despite it's lack of subscription. UW, Fissure, Sorrow's Furnace, Hard Mode, Domain of Angush, Tombs, all the dungeons, challenge missions etc. etc. Although GW2 will probably not have WoW-level endgame, it should be pretty decent.
So basically, here's how the event system will work: If you choose not to save a village from centaurs, it WILL be destroyed. For everybody. However, at some point in the future the chain will eventually "reset" (the centaurs are pushed back), and the village will be rebuilt. The event chain has an oppurtunity to happen again at that point. Makes sense?
event chains are more like tug o war, if you fail to save the town. The town will probably turn into a centaur encampment. Creating a new mission to destroy the centaur encampment and drive them out. if you don't drive them out they will probably move on to another town, starting a new dynamic event. if you succeed the town villagers return slowly rebuilding the town, probably dynamic events to get them supplies to rebuild.
One thing is for certain dynamic events don't ever just reset, They will always take some kind of player action.
I know, I probably should've stated that, but thanks anyway.
I never said being max level makes you a good player
It seemed to be what you were implying initially.
I said good players strive to get to max level quickly.
Still too much of a generalization, some good players like me for instance strive to get everything done in the game on their ride to max level in order to be extremely good when I finally get there. Its all a matter of preference.
That doesn't mean there aren't bad players who might level quickly as well.
It may be a generalization but it is an accurate one. I know the ego is fragile for many gamers, so they'd like to think they are the exception to the rule. "Well I am a good player and I don't like leveling at warp speed!" No one wants to admit they are bad... :P
Hey some good players like leveling at warp speed, some don't. I can say I'm a good player with confidence because I've seen myself grow from being crap and being kicked to creating builds that make the people I fight ask for what I'm running.
You may think that all good players have your mentality but that would be a very ignorant thought.
It's called being a min/maxer. We play to get stuff done.
And of course because it's the way YOU play, therefore it is how "good" players play.
Is that what Mommy and Daddy taught you....that YOUR choices are the only good ones? I can only hope that your attitude in REAL life isn't comparable to your attitude about games. If it is....you will find that life is unbearably short and you will wish you'd stopped to pay attention to the journey when you reach "end game."
Min/maxing and powerleveling are one style of play. They are not the "be all end all" of gaming. As a matter of fact, I have often wondered why people who don't take the time or even care about reading quests, or a story, or exploring an environment....even bother with MMOs. Don't you find FPS games much more fulfilling and suited to your dangling epeen mode of play? I'm just sayin'....it seems contradictory. Why waste your time in a game with bothersome details like questing and crafting and socializing and exploring. All of that content is wasted on someone who just wants to "slam bam thank you ma'am" to the end. (I have to wonder too...if some min/maxer's sex lives are similarly goal oriented and rushed. I feel for their partners. Pity. That would actually make a great research topic. Although...you'd have to talk to the significant others to find out the truth.)
Also...just because someone doesn't rush to end game, doesn't mean they don't take just as much care with assuring their character is the best it can be when they get there. They just want to enjoy the journey TO the end along WITH the end. Maybe their only reason for playing an MMO isn't just competition. Maybe they like experiencing the ENTIRE game they paid for in the way they find the most fulfilling and fun. Ya think?
Comments
Hey some good players like leveling at warp speed, some don't. I can say I'm a good player with confidence because I've seen myself grow from being crap and being kicked to creating builds that make the people I fight ask for what I'm running.
You may think that all good players have your mentality but that would be a very ignorant thought.
This is not a game.
It may be a generalization but it is an accurate one. I know the ego is fragile for many gamers, so they'd like to think they are the exception to the rule. "Well I am a good player and I don't like leveling at warp speed!" No one wants to admit they are bad... :PHey some good players like leveling at warp speed, some don't. I can say I'm a good player with confidence because I've seen myself grow from being crap and being kicked to creating builds that make the people I fight ask for what I'm running.
You may think that all good players have your mentality but that would be a very ignorant thought.
It's called being a min/maxer. We play to get stuff done.You base this solely upon your precious 25-man or 40-man raids not being mentioned for GW2.
It's true that that gameplay mechanism is what is keeping WoW players in WoW for months after months, even if they've grown bored of everything else in WoW. Personally, I find it a horrible gameplay mechanism to mainly keep playing MMO's, and I hope I'll see as less of the raiding, gear and gearscore fixated crowd as possible in GW2. Let them stick to WoW please.
Besides, the world vs world PvP where hundreds and even thousands of players can play to battle over castles, settlements and strategic advantages sound like a great endgame experience already to me.
For the rest, ANet hasn't revealed everything yet, so it's a bit early to say that we've seen all there is to GW2. Lol, we haven't even played the game yet. More to learn next week of some basic gameplay.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
What makes "Good" and "Bad" players is an opinion, to each their own.
Do I think GW2 cares about how you feel about end game? Not as much as other MMOs - Why? Because it isn't subscription based. They are expecting folks to buy their game, play for a while, wander off when bored and come back when new stuff is released.
Back on topic - I don't mind that the dynamic event system isn't fully persistent - the fact that they've said the different chains have different triggers (some even environment based as in triggered by weather), different timing, different branching, etc indicates to me that there's a good chance when I wander through an area something will have changed from the last time I wandered through it.
I also like the fact that we will all have a Personal Story, though I do hope it is optional (I think I read that it was) because sometimes I'm a major quest rebel and refuse to complete them - there again I don't always do my real life chores either.
I think the highlight so far for me about GW2 is that it appears that there will be multiple choices for playing the game. It's kind of weird to maybe see some light at the end of the funnel.
Heh, I have that same feeling. With MMO's upcoming like a SW:TOR, TERA, Rift, FFXIV, GW2, TSW, WoD, Vindictus and others it feels like the MMO market finally gets an energizing boost, with enough variety to cater to all kinds of MMO gamers.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
BTW, they haven't even answered about the "end game" content their gonna have, because they might still implementing that in the game. GW1 was one of the games that had more to do in what you call "end-game" (I just call it lvl cap), because lvls 1-20 were to learn more about the game or try different class combinations. From lvl cap forward, thats where the game really started.
Now in GW2, they have a system that allows leveling up to be much easier (instead of doing lvl 79-80 in +6h gameplay, like WoW). Do you really think they would do this and forget about content when they reach lvl cap? Do you still think that after knowing they worked a lot on it in GW1???
They already said that having levels is just a way to feel the progress of your character, and they changed the lvl cap to lvl 80 in GW2 because a lot of people would feel like the lvl 20 in GW1 was too low, or left because they though "reach lvl cap so game is over" (which was wrong). They care about the content of the game more than "Ping, got another level/reached lvl cap".
I think you're statement that it will get bored in "eng-game" is right to most games already released and still in development, but saying it against A.net is like...... making "All-in" in poker, having only a pair of 3's and playing against 5 players in that turn.
And based on everything we know of anet (gw1) they often have a severe lack of content (gw1 had little to no pve depth whatsoever)
Do you think they are magically going to deliver more endgame content than pay to play games? You've already seen them cut corners on other "features" under the reasoning that they are not a subscription based game and simply do not have the staff to fully expand on those features.
A good example being the dynamic events. If a monstrously funded company like blizzard was tackling dynamic events, they could script epic events that leave a more permanent mark on the world, because anet doesn't have all that staff, they have settled for cyclical events that return to previous states when left unchecked.
Sure this may be satisfactory for the average gamer, but it is also a clear indication that they really don't want to push the envelope they just want to be satisfactory.
If they really were adamant about being innovative and ground breaking, you would see them put more effort into things like dynamic events and truly have a world you can leave a mark on. Not just a personal instanced storyline that you can change for yourself but has no relevance to the persistent world.
It's like they have seduced people with these features, but they aren't actually going to fully develop those features, they are content with satisfactory, as opposed to superb.
Hahaha, you are a funny guy.
This is not a game.
*comes in to be the voice of reason*
OK let's not get another topic locked people. Robert wasn't flamming people or even posting baseless claims. He's trying to have a nice civil discussion/debate in this thread. Let's keep the other thread out of this one.
Now on topic:
It's natural that people will eventually grow bored of the events. But the dynamic events, based on the information we have at this point, sounds like it will last longer than the simple quest system. I think they are banking on all the stuff they implement lasting until they have an expansion ready to come out. Plus we have to remember, the first game is always the "test game" so to speak. I expect to see much greater control over the dynamic event system in following expansions, with them starting to test the limits of the system they created.
I like btw how they've already implemented 1500+ of those Dynamic Events and intend to have thousands of those ingame.
Only reading this already sounds great:
Colin Johanson: If, on the other hand, players fail to destroy the army, it will establish a fort in friendly player territory. From there, the dredge will send shipments of troops and supplies to the fort from the main base while building up walls, turrets, and siege engines to help defend it. Enemy dredge forces will then begin to move out from their newly established fort to attack friendly player locations in the area, sending snipers out into the hills, sending assault team forces to capture friendly player villages, and trying to smash down friendly fortifications with massive dredge walkers. All of these events continue to cascade out into further chains of events where cause and effect is directly related to the player's actions.
For example, if the players do not mobilize to stop the dredge snipers, they'll begin to shoot down all the villagers and merchants in nearby friendly villages. If they fail to stop the dredge assault teams from capturing a village, players will need to lead a force to help liberate the town and free the villagers. All of this content is derived from a single initial event - the dredge army marching through the map
That's just one event, and then you have 1500+ of all kinds of events. I'm certainly interested to read the gameplay reports from the Gamescom later this week.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
event chains are more like tug o war, if you fail to save the town. The town will probably turn into a centaur encampment. Creating a new mission to destroy the centaur encampment and drive them out. if you don't drive them out they will probably move on to another town, starting a new dynamic event. if you succeed the town villagers return slowly rebuilding the town, probably dynamic events to get them supplies to rebuild.
One thing is for certain dynamic events don't ever just reset, They will always take some kind of player action.
"If you've read the articles you know their main pve end-game is going to be 5man dungeons designed for high level characters." Yeah, that's one of the things and they said there will be a lot more.
"And based on everything we know of anet (gw1) they often have a severe lack of content (gw1 had little to no pve depth whatsoever)" Oh really??? so gathering the best and unique skills from bosses and other mobs, doing most of the story telling, doing party instances in order to go through some cities and doing quests aren't PVE? and considering they had much more players in expansions although they had no more lvlsis a way to say they lack content???
About the rest you said, is just b******t! You really are a fan of WoW and Blizzard. Keep this in mind, A.net is working in innovating the mmorpg genre in their GW2 game, not Blizzard, so you can't say they would be better if you don't know if they could implement a thing never done before and still work well. You should know well that everything in WoW has already existed in earlier games, they just implemented it all and it worked well. Implement a feature and creating are completely different issues. And I don't know how could Blizzard do a better thing with Dynamic Event System, its just so full of innovation now that more could really lead the game to shreads (too much innovation in 1 feature is indeed dangerous). Truuly give a mark on the world??? They are doing it -.-". AND I've never heard about them cutting features because they aren't a subscription based game and i follow every detail about the game, so sorry mate, you're creating your own conclusions.
Oh look.. we rescued a tiny village from being ramshackled by 30 centaurs! Yes! Celebration awaits!
*5 minutes later*
What the?! The centaurs, they're back..again?...
I'm just waiting to see what the reviews from the demos will tell us too. I hope they deliver what they promised in the demos.
@Morcotulcon: Well, Robert is right in one thing: Blizzard has become terribly complacent, only reaping the benefits from all their treadmills in place. With the amount of money they're getting from WoW, the amount of amazing and spectacular gameplay should be enormous, they could even be completely revolutionary with all kinds of intriguing added features if they invested a solid sum back into WoW. Instead, WoW is what it is today, and in gameplay aspects slowly being surpassed by other MMO's.
Well, maybe CATA or Blizzard's next MMO will change that a bit, but WoW is certainly not looking as hot as some of the upcoming MMO's, like GW2.
But, that's for a discussion in another thread, this one was about the trailer.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
It's more like: "What the?! Another band... again? We should go to the centaur base that's sending them and destroy it, let's go! (while thinking, ah, so that's what that NPC guardscaptain was talking about, having heard of a camp of centaurs in the mountains and looking for volunteers to scout it)"
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Apparently you had the sound off while watching the trailer as they said that is exactly what WILL NOT happen.
I see your points... especially the last one lol You're right, I won't divert the conversation from the OP anymore.
While players won't always feel compelled to run around saving villages simply for the sake of "progressing", there's are bound to be situations in which you might still want to access the services located in one of these areas, even as a higher level player. I seem to recall a similar system at work in GW:Factions, wherein pvp battles determined your control of territory, which in turn determined whether you had access to particular merchants in an outpost. There's nothing to say that you couldn't return as an accomplished hero to save the starting zones at a later point in the game. (I find myself doing this often enough when there's world pvp in mmorpgs anyways, except that it usually involves clearing out a couple of high level enemy players, rather than armies of mobs).
Naturally, the balance issue here is in how quickly these events cycle. If they cycle too slowly, you might end up missing out on a lot of the content. If they cycle too fast, then it might get tiresome endlessly kicking out centaurs from your home turf. It would be nice if some of the higher level content had something of a trickle-down effect - namely, if an attack lead by higher level players to take out the centaur home base could cut down the frequency of attacks, or something like that. Either that, or having some sort of war effort going on which would enable players to recruit guards.
In any case, while experimenting like this is bound to create some unusual problems for the developers, I'm interested in seeing what solutions they'll devise to tackle them.
What Arenanet is attempting with Dynamic Events has never been done before in an MMO (it's been attempted somewhat with Warhammer Online's public quests, but those failed), and if they succeed it will revolutionize the market. if it fails... well.. it's still B2P, so I'll probably get it.
The original Guild Wars actually had a surprising amount of endgame despite it's lack of subscription. UW, Fissure, Sorrow's Furnace, Hard Mode, Domain of Angush, Tombs, all the dungeons, challenge missions etc. etc. Although GW2 will probably not have WoW-level endgame, it should be pretty decent.
I know, I probably should've stated that, but thanks anyway.
This is something that will NOT happen. Go read up more on the system before you make ignorant assumptions.
EDIT: Shit. I tripleposted. Um... sorry? *runs away*
And of course because it's the way YOU play, therefore it is how "good" players play.
Is that what Mommy and Daddy taught you....that YOUR choices are the only good ones? I can only hope that your attitude in REAL life isn't comparable to your attitude about games. If it is....you will find that life is unbearably short and you will wish you'd stopped to pay attention to the journey when you reach "end game."
Min/maxing and powerleveling are one style of play. They are not the "be all end all" of gaming. As a matter of fact, I have often wondered why people who don't take the time or even care about reading quests, or a story, or exploring an environment....even bother with MMOs. Don't you find FPS games much more fulfilling and suited to your dangling epeen mode of play? I'm just sayin'....it seems contradictory. Why waste your time in a game with bothersome details like questing and crafting and socializing and exploring. All of that content is wasted on someone who just wants to "slam bam thank you ma'am" to the end. (I have to wonder too...if some min/maxer's sex lives are similarly goal oriented and rushed. I feel for their partners. Pity. That would actually make a great research topic. Although...you'd have to talk to the significant others to find out the truth.)
Also...just because someone doesn't rush to end game, doesn't mean they don't take just as much care with assuring their character is the best it can be when they get there. They just want to enjoy the journey TO the end along WITH the end. Maybe their only reason for playing an MMO isn't just competition. Maybe they like experiencing the ENTIRE game they paid for in the way they find the most fulfilling and fun. Ya think?
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Is there really 8 pages here on a clarification comment from the ArenaNet blog? Or is this a typical derailment train wreck thread?