I simply said that no game (GW2) included will ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR. That was the point of my post, and noting more. It's always "amusing" when people like you take it to be someting more and the stroking of tiny e-peens commences behind a quite transparent veil.
I'm pretty sure that the OP's question was merely about the similarities in the RvR/faction PvP between GW2 and DAoC and how much they'd be alike, and not about whether GW2 will be a DAoC or have the same gameplay - which evidently they haven't.
When it comes to RvR PvP, it looks to me that GW2's World vs World PvP comes closer to DAoC's RvR than any other MMORPG so far has.
NB: and could you ppl please stop quoting whole quote chains in your posts? It's unneeded.
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."
Why does it matter if worked at mythic pre-daoc, relative to daoc. If he didn't work there during DAOC he really has no extra credibility when it comes to daoc. Though on a personal level if he had anything to do with magestorm he is cool in my book. Obviously we can notice the similarity in 3 faction pvp systems. And obviously anet is going to try to snag customers from anywhere they can get them. Will it actually be the spiritual successor though? Time will tell. If the wvwvw pvp is setup with straightforward and simple objectives like a wintergrasp we are in trouble. And based on the vibe I get from anet where they don't want things to be too challenging for casuals, i think it's going to be closer to this than to games like daoc.
Since when has server vs server combat on a massive scale been anything but casual? Join a zerg, gank someone who's lost, fire some catapults, kill some stationary NPC's at a mine. It's the casual gamers dreamland and has never been about how good you are on an individual level.
The skilled people who's looking for an e-sport experience will play the competative PvP where your skill on an individual level and team level will be truly tested.
Ever heard of roaming pvp? Some people took pvp quite seriously before things like 5v5 formats etc were implemented. Both have their place though. I honestly feel roaming pvp is better suited for what mmorpgs should be about though. Also if GW1 is any indicator the competitive arena based pvp will be pretty simple, limited skill bars do that to games, but if you ask any fanatical gw1 player they obviously will claim the game was rocket science even though the movement was primitive and the skillbar was extremely limited.
So you're implying that DAoC's RvR was hardcore while GW's arena style PvP that hosts monthly tournaments for money that I'm sure you've never been close to even qualifying for is casual? Did I mention the World Championships with up to $50k prizepots. I'm sorry but it's quite easy to see what kind of player you are and what you're looking for and it's not competativeness that you want.
The problem with GW was that it was too hard to see what was going on for casual D&D style PvPers like you. Frankly it was pretty boring to watch a game and that was probably what kept you from even trying to get in to that scene.
Not enough gear for you buddy?
You have me completely misread, which doesn't surprise me. First off, throwing money at tourneys does not actually speak to the quality of the game. For example gw1 pvp was very slowpaced, movement was slow and limited, skill bars were limited, and the rate at which things died was slow, it relied heavily on spiking, and coordinated burst while it requires some coordination, is not some epicly difficult task to pull off. I mean you couldn't even jump in gw1 and it was littered with clickers. I also never said rvr was more hardcore than arena type pvp, I just said that in an mmorpg world pvp fits better than instanced XvX formats because they tend not to be very massive in nature. What it really sounds like is that you are a gw1 enthusiast that exaggerates how challenging that game actually was. I didn't lose interest in gw cause it was "too hard" i lost interest in it because it was "too easy" and I had played much more challenging games before it. I've also always been a top level player in every game i've played consistently so please don't come at me like i'm some typical carebear baddy.
The fact that you bring up the limited skill bar as an example as to why it was bad really show's that you lack a basic understanding of the game and that this conversation is useless. More skillz = more 1337 right?
I was a bit of a GW1 enthusiast earlier because it's the only MMORPG that has given me a really tense team based PvP experience that brought me close to the feelings a really tense CS 1.6 or Q3 match could give me, or StarCraft for that matter even if I never was any good at it.
I did quit and that was mainly because of the movement issues you mentioned and that's pretty much the only valid reason you've given me as to why GW1 was lacking. Even if that complaint probably came for all the wrong reasons aswell. Dogding, positioning and movement still played a vital role in GW1 even if it was pretty lacking on an entertainment level.
ArenaNet has realized this and that's why I'm pretty sure that GW2 is the first MMORPG that has a legitemate chance to break this genre in to the E-sport scene for real. A scene I'm sure I'll never see you in.
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play.
What takes more skill to play well, an mmo or chess?
Depends on your definition of skill. Is fast reflex a skill? Is hand-eye coordination a skill? Sorta like people often debate what is harder, blitz chess or typical tourney chess.
Originally posted by Pywatt
Originally posted by RobertDinh
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play. You can try to argue against it til you are blue in the face, but the reality of it is that when you have only a limited amount of skills per player, there are less things to worry about. In a ga-me where someone is much more versatile and capable of a great many more things you have a larger pool of scenarios that you need to react properly to. That's just how it is, though i've seen a lot of gw1 players try to argue against that obviously because it would discredit the game they love if they were to admit that. 3. Again stop coming off like you are some hardcore esports junky, i'm much more well-informed and experienced with esports than you. Anet also uses the term e-sports very loosely and you can not compare gw1 as an esport to a real esport like bw, 1.6, quake. GW1 did not have an extremely high skill cap. The game was slowpaced, the movement was impaired, and there just weren't very many variables to consider. Just because it had tourneys with prize pools doesn't mean it was a good competitive game. If that were the case you could make the argument for games like league of legends and various console games as well.
Haha! Okay. I thought you were half serious/half trolling at first but that was just far to obvious. That's just bad trolling.
Would you care to elaborate on what part of that is trolling? Or do you just accuse people of trolling when they shut your arguments down.
You know the fact that you imply that a game built for e-sport needs an extremely high skill cap kinda just killed it. Good luck in your hardcore RvR environment of choice though. I'm sure you'll find plenty of noobs to gank and feel hardcore.
Well first off a game should have a high skill cap if it's to be played competitively. Second off, you have misread me again, i gain no pleasure beating bad players, i am a competitor, i like being challenged by skilled players.
It depends if you think knowledge is a skill. Much of video game playing is knowledge. With PVE anyone can apply that knowledge to the game. In PVP you have to deal with the unpredictable so there is that added element (although, strangely enough the better the team is at high level pvp, the more predictable they are).
Now, I'm willing to bet that you could have many more professional baseball players able to play wow at a high level in pvp than the reverse. In fact, I would be absolutely shocked if you had a professional wow player who would be able to play professional baseball. So in essence, the skillset to play baseball is much greater than to play wow. That is just an example. The reason I bring this up is because essentially Baseball is a very simple sport. And yet by your definition, the simpler it is the less skillful it is. The same thing applies to the Chess analogy.
It depends if you think knowledge is a skill. Much of video game playing is knowledge. With PVE anyone can apply that knowledge to the game. In PVP you have to deal with the unpredictable so there is that added element (although, strangely enough the better the team is at high level pvp, the more predictable they are). Now, I'm willing to bet that you could have many more professional baseball players able to play wow at a high level in pvp than the reverse. In fact, I would be absolutely shocked if you had a professional wow player who would be able to play professional baseball. So in essence, the skillset to play baseball is much greater than to play wow. That is just an example. The reason I bring this up is because essentially Baseball is a very simple sport. And yet by your definition, the simpler it is the less skillful it is. The same thing applies to the Chess analogy.
You say anyone can apply knowledge but in my over-a-decade of mmorpg experience i can tell you everyone has their limits. Most mmorpg players post-wow would not have survived in an environment like eq1 raiding. Also you can theorycraft all you want but if you took the percentage of professional baseball players who can hit a 100mph fastball, relative to the number of people playing baseball, and then applied that percentile to wow pvp relative to all of the people playing wow pvp. You would probably find that it isn't really so easy for the baseball players to reach that specific level of skill in wow pvp.
Also the mechanics are different, someone could blindly swing at a 100mph baseball and they may connect and hit it. As opposed to high level wow pvp, where if you don't know exactly what you are doing, and do it well, you have literally zero chance of winning.
Why does it matter if worked at mythic pre-daoc, relative to daoc. If he didn't work there during DAOC he really has no extra credibility when it comes to daoc. Though on a personal level if he had anything to do with magestorm he is cool in my book. Obviously we can notice the similarity in 3 faction pvp systems. And obviously anet is going to try to snag customers from anywhere they can get them. Will it actually be the spiritual successor though? Time will tell. If the wvwvw pvp is setup with straightforward and simple objectives like a wintergrasp we are in trouble. And based on the vibe I get from anet where they don't want things to be too challenging for casuals, i think it's going to be closer to this than to games like daoc.
Since when has server vs server combat on a massive scale been anything but casual? Join a zerg, gank someone who's lost, fire some catapults, kill some stationary NPC's at a mine. It's the casual gamers dreamland and has never been about how good you are on an individual level.
The skilled people who's looking for an e-sport experience will play the competative PvP where your skill on an individual level and team level will be truly tested.
Ever heard of roaming pvp? Some people took pvp quite seriously before things like 5v5 formats etc were implemented. Both have their place though. I honestly feel roaming pvp is better suited for what mmorpgs should be about though. Also if GW1 is any indicator the competitive arena based pvp will be pretty simple, limited skill bars do that to games, but if you ask any fanatical gw1 player they obviously will claim the game was rocket science even though the movement was primitive and the skillbar was extremely limited.
So you're implying that DAoC's RvR was hardcore while GW's arena style PvP that hosts monthly tournaments for money that I'm sure you've never been close to even qualifying for is casual? Did I mention the World Championships with up to $50k prizepots. I'm sorry but it's quite easy to see what kind of player you are and what you're looking for and it's not competativeness that you want.
The problem with GW was that it was too hard to see what was going on for casual D&D style PvPers like you. Frankly it was pretty boring to watch a game and that was probably what kept you from even trying to get in to that scene.
Not enough gear for you buddy?
You have me completely misread, which doesn't surprise me. First off, throwing money at tourneys does not actually speak to the quality of the game. For example gw1 pvp was very slowpaced, movement was slow and limited, skill bars were limited, and the rate at which things died was slow, it relied heavily on spiking, and coordinated burst while it requires some coordination, is not some epicly difficult task to pull off. I mean you couldn't even jump in gw1 and it was littered with clickers. I also never said rvr was more hardcore than arena type pvp, I just said that in an mmorpg world pvp fits better than instanced XvX formats because they tend not to be very massive in nature. What it really sounds like is that you are a gw1 enthusiast that exaggerates how challenging that game actually was. I didn't lose interest in gw cause it was "too hard" i lost interest in it because it was "too easy" and I had played much more challenging games before it. I've also always been a top level player in every game i've played consistently so please don't come at me like i'm some typical carebear baddy.
The fact that you bring up the limited skill bar as an example as to why it was bad really show's that you lack a basic understanding of the game and that this conversation is useless. More skillz = more 1337 right?
I was a bit of a GW1 enthusiast earlier because it's the only MMORPG that has given me a really tense team based PvP experience that brought me close to the feelings a really tense CS 1.6 or Q3 match could give me, or StarCraft for that matter even if I never was any good at it.
I did quit and that was mainly because of the movement issues you mentioned and that's pretty much the only valid reason you've given me as to why GW1 was lacking. Even if that complaint probably came for all the wrong reasons aswell. Dogding, positioning and movement still played a vital role in GW1 even if it was pretty lacking on an entertainment level.
ArenaNet has realized this and that's why I'm pretty sure that GW2 is the first MMORPG that has a legitemate chance to break this genre in to the E-sport scene for real. A scene I'm sure I'll never see you in.
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play.
What takes more skill to play well, an mmo or chess?
Depends on your definition of skill. Is fast reflex a skill? Is hand-eye coordination a skill? Sorta like people often debate what is harder, blitz chess or typical tourney chess.
Originally posted by Pywatt
Originally posted by RobertDinh
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play. You can try to argue against it til you are blue in the face, but the reality of it is that when you have only a limited amount of skills per player, there are less things to worry about. In a ga-me where someone is much more versatile and capable of a great many more things you have a larger pool of scenarios that you need to react properly to. That's just how it is, though i've seen a lot of gw1 players try to argue against that obviously because it would discredit the game they love if they were to admit that. 3. Again stop coming off like you are some hardcore esports junky, i'm much more well-informed and experienced with esports than you. Anet also uses the term e-sports very loosely and you can not compare gw1 as an esport to a real esport like bw, 1.6, quake. GW1 did not have an extremely high skill cap. The game was slowpaced, the movement was impaired, and there just weren't very many variables to consider. Just because it had tourneys with prize pools doesn't mean it was a good competitive game. If that were the case you could make the argument for games like league of legends and various console games as well.
Haha! Okay. I thought you were half serious/half trolling at first but that was just far to obvious. That's just bad trolling.
Would you care to elaborate on what part of that is trolling? Or do you just accuse people of trolling when they shut your arguments down.
You know the fact that you imply that a game built for e-sport needs an extremely high skill cap kinda just killed it. Good luck in your hardcore RvR environment of choice though. I'm sure you'll find plenty of noobs to gank and feel hardcore.
Well first off a game should have a high skill cap if it's to be played competitively. Second off, you have misread me again, i gain no pleasure beating bad players, i am a competitor, i like being challenged by skilled players.
A game made for competative purposes doesnt need any kind of levels. Equal footing is what it's all about. They could call that level 1 or 764 or they could even remove the XP bar and little number in front of your name.
Levels are useful as a tool for for PvE players so that they can know how far in to a game they are.
Why does it matter if worked at mythic pre-daoc, relative to daoc. If he didn't work there during DAOC he really has no extra credibility when it comes to daoc. Though on a personal level if he had anything to do with magestorm he is cool in my book. Obviously we can notice the similarity in 3 faction pvp systems. And obviously anet is going to try to snag customers from anywhere they can get them. Will it actually be the spiritual successor though? Time will tell. If the wvwvw pvp is setup with straightforward and simple objectives like a wintergrasp we are in trouble. And based on the vibe I get from anet where they don't want things to be too challenging for casuals, i think it's going to be closer to this than to games like daoc.
Since when has server vs server combat on a massive scale been anything but casual? Join a zerg, gank someone who's lost, fire some catapults, kill some stationary NPC's at a mine. It's the casual gamers dreamland and has never been about how good you are on an individual level.
The skilled people who's looking for an e-sport experience will play the competative PvP where your skill on an individual level and team level will be truly tested.
Ever heard of roaming pvp? Some people took pvp quite seriously before things like 5v5 formats etc were implemented. Both have their place though. I honestly feel roaming pvp is better suited for what mmorpgs should be about though. Also if GW1 is any indicator the competitive arena based pvp will be pretty simple, limited skill bars do that to games, but if you ask any fanatical gw1 player they obviously will claim the game was rocket science even though the movement was primitive and the skillbar was extremely limited.
So you're implying that DAoC's RvR was hardcore while GW's arena style PvP that hosts monthly tournaments for money that I'm sure you've never been close to even qualifying for is casual? Did I mention the World Championships with up to $50k prizepots. I'm sorry but it's quite easy to see what kind of player you are and what you're looking for and it's not competativeness that you want.
The problem with GW was that it was too hard to see what was going on for casual D&D style PvPers like you. Frankly it was pretty boring to watch a game and that was probably what kept you from even trying to get in to that scene.
Not enough gear for you buddy?
You have me completely misread, which doesn't surprise me. First off, throwing money at tourneys does not actually speak to the quality of the game. For example gw1 pvp was very slowpaced, movement was slow and limited, skill bars were limited, and the rate at which things died was slow, it relied heavily on spiking, and coordinated burst while it requires some coordination, is not some epicly difficult task to pull off. I mean you couldn't even jump in gw1 and it was littered with clickers. I also never said rvr was more hardcore than arena type pvp, I just said that in an mmorpg world pvp fits better than instanced XvX formats because they tend not to be very massive in nature. What it really sounds like is that you are a gw1 enthusiast that exaggerates how challenging that game actually was. I didn't lose interest in gw cause it was "too hard" i lost interest in it because it was "too easy" and I had played much more challenging games before it. I've also always been a top level player in every game i've played consistently so please don't come at me like i'm some typical carebear baddy.
The fact that you bring up the limited skill bar as an example as to why it was bad really show's that you lack a basic understanding of the game and that this conversation is useless. More skillz = more 1337 right?
I was a bit of a GW1 enthusiast earlier because it's the only MMORPG that has given me a really tense team based PvP experience that brought me close to the feelings a really tense CS 1.6 or Q3 match could give me, or StarCraft for that matter even if I never was any good at it.
I did quit and that was mainly because of the movement issues you mentioned and that's pretty much the only valid reason you've given me as to why GW1 was lacking. Even if that complaint probably came for all the wrong reasons aswell. Dogding, positioning and movement still played a vital role in GW1 even if it was pretty lacking on an entertainment level.
ArenaNet has realized this and that's why I'm pretty sure that GW2 is the first MMORPG that has a legitemate chance to break this genre in to the E-sport scene for real. A scene I'm sure I'll never see you in.
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play.
What takes more skill to play well, an mmo or chess?
Depends on your definition of skill. Is fast reflex a skill? Is hand-eye coordination a skill? Sorta like people often debate what is harder, blitz chess or typical tourney chess.
Originally posted by Pywatt
Originally posted by RobertDinh
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play. You can try to argue against it til you are blue in the face, but the reality of it is that when you have only a limited amount of skills per player, there are less things to worry about. In a ga-me where someone is much more versatile and capable of a great many more things you have a larger pool of scenarios that you need to react properly to. That's just how it is, though i've seen a lot of gw1 players try to argue against that obviously because it would discredit the game they love if they were to admit that. 3. Again stop coming off like you are some hardcore esports junky, i'm much more well-informed and experienced with esports than you. Anet also uses the term e-sports very loosely and you can not compare gw1 as an esport to a real esport like bw, 1.6, quake. GW1 did not have an extremely high skill cap. The game was slowpaced, the movement was impaired, and there just weren't very many variables to consider. Just because it had tourneys with prize pools doesn't mean it was a good competitive game. If that were the case you could make the argument for games like league of legends and various console games as well.
Haha! Okay. I thought you were half serious/half trolling at first but that was just far to obvious. That's just bad trolling.
Would you care to elaborate on what part of that is trolling? Or do you just accuse people of trolling when they shut your arguments down.
You know the fact that you imply that a game built for e-sport needs an extremely high skill cap kinda just killed it. Good luck in your hardcore RvR environment of choice though. I'm sure you'll find plenty of noobs to gank and feel hardcore.
Well first off a game should have a high skill cap if it's to be played competitively. Second off, you have misread me again, i gain no pleasure beating bad players, i am a competitor, i like being challenged by skilled players.
A game made for competative purposes doesnt need any kind of levels. Equal footing is what it's all about. They could call that level 1 or 764 or they could even remove the XP bar and little number in front of your name.
Levels are useful as a tool for for PvE players so that they can know how far in to a game they are.
I think you have blatantly misunderstood what i mean by skill levels and skill caps relative to esports.
I simply said that no game (GW2) included will ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR. That was the point of my post, and noting more. It's always "amusing" when people like you take it to be someting more and the stroking of tiny e-peens commences behind a quite transparent veil.
I'm pretty sure that the OP's question was merely about the similarities in the RvR/faction PvP between GW2 and DAoC and how much they'd be alike, and not about whether GW2 will be a DAoC or have the same gameplay - which evidently they haven't.
When it comes to RvR PvP, it looks to me that GW2's World vs World PvP comes closer to DAoC's RvR than any other MMORPG so far has.
NB: and could you ppl please stop quoting whole quote chains in your posts? It's unneeded.
Title of thread: How many expect this to be like DAoC?
I expect nothing to be "like" DAoC RvR or DAoC as a whole, therefore this will not be like DAoC.
If the game included three entirely different worlds (as opposed to continents) each with an entirely different culture, set of classes, environment, story, and feel, then had all three of the worlds fighting in a battlegrounds similar to those in DAoC for control of relics and large dungeons, I would agree that they are similar.
However, that is not the case... so I do not expect them to be similar.
I simply said that no game (GW2) included will ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR. That was the point of my post, and noting more. It's always "amusing" when people like you take it to be someting more and the stroking of tiny e-peens commences behind a quite transparent veil.
I'm pretty sure that the OP's question was merely about the similarities in the RvR/faction PvP between GW2 and DAoC and how much they'd be alike, and not about whether GW2 will be a DAoC or have the same gameplay - which evidently they haven't.
When it comes to RvR PvP, it looks to me that GW2's World vs World PvP comes closer to DAoC's RvR than any other MMORPG so far has.
NB: and could you ppl please stop quoting whole quote chains in your posts? It's unneeded.
Title of thread: How many expect this to be like DAoC?
I expect nothing to be "like" DAoC RvR or DAoC as a whole, therefore this will not be like DAoC.
If the game included three entirely different worlds (as opposed to continents) each with an entirely different culture, set of classes, environment, story, and feel, then had all three of the worlds fighting in a battlegrounds similar to those in DAoC for control of relics and large dungeons, I would agree that they are similar. However, that is not the case... so they are not similar.
I would agree with this. I think the comparison comes from the 3 "faction" (world, whatever) competing in a huge landscape. It also has RTS elements, or so they said. I'm looking forward to it. But you are right in that there is no lore reason behind the WvW realm. It is just a fun aspect of the game.
I'll try to inject something constructive into the conversation, but as per usual it is likely too sensible a comment to be noticed by the rabid haters.
Here is the real fact:
-If you are not a fan of Guild Wars 2 in the context of this conversation, you should also realize you do not know hardly anything about the WvWvW combat in GW2. Therefore your point is null, your opinion however, dualy noted.
-If you are a fan of Guild Wars 2 in this context of this conversation, you should also realize that the people attacking it are sticking to their guns, sure they have likely done much less research than you up to this point - but you won't budge them until you show them game play.
What I am really trying to say is...
A: If you don't like Guild Wars 2, start a new thread about it - this thread is about GW2 + DAoC, not GW2 vs DAoC.
B: If you don't like the comments about how "GW1 was good PvP", you should likely realize it was a team game and the amount of organization on a team level alongside the choice of skills on a team level made it more complex than you are making it out to seem. I am not arguing that the game takes a long time to master, it doesn't but what it does take is timing and coordination - something I recall DAoC and Shadowbane being centered around.
TL:DR = Some people define complexity involving coordinated team play you obviously do not, /conversation
C: If you DO like Guild Wars 2 but absolutely feel the need to defend it with your precious time against people who are so closed minded of their surroundings that they would actually feel the need to come here in a forum... dedicated to discussion about a game and argue that they won't be touching it until they can sample the goods farther - you are an idiot.
You do not know what GW2 has planned as far as PvP goes, none of you including me. I choose to er on the side of "I hope it will be good", if you do not - cool story bro in advance. But to say that it will be either good or bad, or anything even closely related to those comments is pretty stupid - no offense.
E: Thanks for reading, though this is probably too much sense for some of you - see you later.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
The game that I think will come closest to the 3-way faction PvP as seen in DAoC is The Secret World, where the 3 factions Templars, Illuminati and Dragon will fight it out in specific areas over resources and control.
Still, I'm looking forward to the world vs world PvP of GW2, even if it's casual, the fact that you fight against other world servers each week and that there are rankings certainly has a strong competitive element and server community bonding effect.
Besides, more than 2 factions in a MMORPG's PvP is the way to go.
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."
I'll try to inject something constructive into the conversation, but as per usual it is likely too sensible a comment to be noticed by the rabid haters.
Here is the real fact:
-If you are not a fan of Guild Wars 2 in the context of this conversation, you should also realize you do not know hardly anything about the WvWvW combat in GW2. Therefore your point is null, your opinion however, dualy noted.
-If you are a fan of Guild Wars 2 in this context of this conversation, you should also realize that the people attacking it are sticking to their guns, sure they have likely done much less research than you up to this point - but you won't budge them until you show them game play.
What I am really trying to say is...
A: If you don't like Guild Wars 2, start a new thread about it - this thread is about GW2 + DAoC, not GW2 vs DAoC.
B: If you don't like the comments about how "GW1 was good PvP", you should likely realize it was a team game and the amount of organization on a team level alongside the choice of skills on a team level made it more complex than you are making it out to seem. I am not arguing that the game takes a long time to master, it doesn't but what it does take is timing and coordination - something I recall DAoC and Shadowbane being centered around.
TL:DR = Some people define complexity involving coordinated team play you obviously do not, /conversation
C: If you DO like Guild Wars 2 but absolutely feel the need to defend it with your precious time against people who are so closed minded of their surroundings that they would actually feel the need to come here in a forum... dedicated to discussion about a game and argue that they won't be touching it until they can sample the goods farther - you are an idiot.
You do not know what GW2 has planned as far as PvP goes, none of you including me. I choose to er on the side of "I hope it will be good", if you do not - cool story bro in advance. But to say that it will be either good or bad, or anything even closely related to those comments is pretty stupid - no offense.
E: Thanks for reading, though this is probably too much sense for some of you - see you later.
I have a new quote for your signature.
"He who thinks himself wise, Oh heavens! Is a great fool."
This thread was obviously about whether or not we expect this game to be like DAoC, with a highlight on RvR/WvW.
So, the context of this thread is anything relating to those similarities (though small at the moment), and whether we expect it to be like DAoC. Therefore, this thread doesn't favor DAoC + GW2 or DAoC vs. GW2, just the primary question posed by the OP.
Expectations are usually made without all of the facts, therefore whether or not everyone has all of the facts is of little import.
The only problem is, everything you are saying is "No, this game will not be DAoC, no matter how hard it tries".
Therefore you are stating a definite, waiting to either be proven right or wrong.
This thread is not DAoC vs GW2, no matter how much you want it to be. I understand you love DAoC, and I also understand you think little about GW2 in the form of WvWvW. You are simply biasing assumptions on your prideful dedication to a relic.
And name calling? Give me a break.
Also, I do or I don't, Not, It is, or it isn't - BIG difference.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
The only problem is, everything you are saying is "No, this game will not be DAoC, no matter how hard it tries".
Therefore you are stating a definite, waiting to either be proven right or wrong.
This thread is not DAoC vs GW2, no matter how much you want it to be. I understand you love DAoC, and I also understand you think little about GW2 in the form of WvWvW. You are simply biasing assumptions on your prideful dedication to a relic.
And name calling? Give me a break.
Also, I do or I don't, Not, It is, or it isn't - BIG difference.
I'm not saying that GW2 cannot be like DAoC no matter how hard it tries, i'm saying if it doesn't meet the particular criteria it will not be "like" DAoC in any way other than the fact that one collective is fighting another. I stated above quite clearly that if it doesn't contain those basic parts present in DAoC and DAoC RvR, it will not be like DAoC.
If you would read more carefully you also would have noticed that I stated this game would never "BE" DAoC, rather than "BE LIKE" DAoC. The OP's question is whether this will "BE LIKE" DAoC, and given the current information I can safely say it will not be like DAoC as a whole.
I am not basing my "assumption" on simply being prideful to a relic, you should be less selective of what you read. It's the game as a whole that made DAoC RvR what it was. If GW2 takes one or two criteria from DAoC it will not provide the same experience, and that is the truth.
Any assumptions that I think lowly of GW2 are also completely wrong, and nothing more than straw grabbing.
This thread IS about anything pertaining to similarities between the two games and what we expect, whether it pits the two against each other or looks for similarities, end of story. Anything to the contrary is just wrong, no argument needed.
Namecalling? Who was namecalling? Give ME a break.
"Hilarious" considering I never claimed to be all knowing on the topic of GW2 or to have participated in anything relating to GW2.
I simply said that no game (GW2) included will ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR. That was the point of my post, and noting more. It's always "amusing" when people like you take it to be someting more and the stroking of tiny e-peens commences behind a quite transparent veil.
> random comment about how much the game is going to sell in the future and how that makes it a better game
> make comment about me not being part of the games main population as if you are all wise (as you think I think so)
/laugh
/reply
So, essentially, by your own admission: you know very little about the PvP aspect of the game, you've never participated in playing it - ever - yet, for some reason, you're qualified to make the judgement that "no game" - which includes Guild Wars 2 - will "ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR?" The point of your post is, quite frankly, stupid - that's my point. I honestly couldn't care two hoots about my apparent "e-peen.". Whether Guild Wars 2 succeeds or fails doesn't affect me in the least. If the latter is the case, that's on ArenaNet's back. It's rather rich that you, who apparently possesses the ability to predict the future, is accusing others of being a fanboy, on the other hand.
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Just as it is foolish to decide negatively on something when not much is known about it, it is just as foolish to decide positively under the same circumstances.
You make it sound as if I've decided positively on Guild Wars 2's PvP. I have not, as I know very little about it. I love the other aspects of the game that have been revealed, but PvP is yet to be seen.
"Hilarious" considering I never claimed to be all knowing on the topic of GW2 or to have participated in anything relating to GW2.
I simply said that no game (GW2) included will ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR. That was the point of my post, and noting more. It's always "amusing" when people like you take it to be someting more and the stroking of tiny e-peens commences behind a quite transparent veil.
> random comment about how much the game is going to sell in the future and how that makes it a better game
> make comment about me not being part of the games main population as if you are all wise (as you think I think so)
/laugh
/reply
So, essentially, by your own admission: you know very little about the PvP aspect of the game, you've never participated in playing it - ever - yet, for some reason, you're qualified to make the judgement that "no game" - which includes Guild Wars 2 - will "ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR?" The point of your post is, quite frankly, stupid - that's my point. I honestly couldn't care two hoots about my apparent "e-peen.". Whether Guild Wars 2 succeeds or fails doesn't affect me in the least. If the latter is the case, that's on ArenaNet's back. It's rather rich that you, who apparently possesses the ability to predict the future, is accusing others of being a fanboy, on the other hand.
I know as much about the PvP aspect of the game as everyone else. That deems me qualified enough (as everyone else) to make a prediction on whether or not this game will be like or will not be like DAoC and DAoC RvR. You can read my other posts for more information on why, but in small terms it does not currently meet the criteria needed to bring about the same experience as DAoC RvR.
I stated that no game will ever "BE" DAoC, and that the best new games can do is model themselves after what DAoC is/was. It takes a very very similar setup to DAoC to achieve the same experience, which is why I stated that the only game that would come close is a DAoC 2.
I couldn't care less whether you think my comment was "stupid" as quite frankly it has no basis other than what you think given that you are now burdened with having to reply to it.
Whether or not is succeeds doesn't affect you? That is quite strange, as in your last post it was used as a means to prove (in the future) that GW2 was "better" and would sell more than DAoC has ever sold. Like I said, given what you said, I find that quite strange...
I don't possess the ability to predict the future, only to make educted guesses.
I find it "rich" (I just said rich (Notice again that I just used the word rich)) that you think I ever accused anyone of being a fanboy. Feel free to point me to the cave in which that comment resides, as I can't seem to find it... I'll venture to say that such a comment doesn't exist (and that's not a prediction).
Depends on your definition of skill, is analyzing something with strategical depth a skill? Is responding correctly while taking a great many variables into consideration a skill? I mean a great baseball player, for example, might have a hard time typing quickly. Both are physically related, but the dynamics behind hitting a baseball vs operating a mouse and keyboard efficiently are different. I mean with gw1 the movement was limited, the gameplay was slow, so reflex and the physicality of actually playing that game weren't very hard, and then at the same time because the skill bar was so limited the strategic aspect was also not very deep, so what else did it have to offer that made it so skillful? I mean spiking was a big deal in gw1, and coordinated burst is not that hard relative to gaming in general.
I take it you never played GvG at a high lvl. Movement (positioning to be more exact) was one of the most important part of the game in guild wars. A squishy caster could easily die from standing a meter too far. And the monks needed godly reflexes (to get prot spells into a 0.25s cast spike etc.) and/or good reading of the game to guess who they are spiking. The strategic aspect of the game was very high due to having the need to do as much as possible with as little as possible (so few skills you can take and so many skills/builds you have to be able to counter somehow). And a lot of the time you simply couldnt fit all the needed skills to counter certain builds at all and had to rely on just playing tacticly better then your opponent or abusing their builds weaknesses like spike builds generally not being able to split well and thus being at disadvantage against a split. The energy pools of your monks were very important too. During pushes you are bound to take a lot more dmg then when just hanging around the flag and burn trough your monks energy. The flag games could get very tricky too sometimes.
There are a lot of small things you really dont notice about GvG in gw if you havent played it a lot on high lvl (in top20. Prefebly top10 in the ladder) a lot.
Depends on your definition of skill, is analyzing something with strategical depth a skill? Is responding correctly while taking a great many variables into consideration a skill? I mean a great baseball player, for example, might have a hard time typing quickly. Both are physically related, but the dynamics behind hitting a baseball vs operating a mouse and keyboard efficiently are different. I mean with gw1 the movement was limited, the gameplay was slow, so reflex and the physicality of actually playing that game weren't very hard, and then at the same time because the skill bar was so limited the strategic aspect was also not very deep, so what else did it have to offer that made it so skillful? I mean spiking was a big deal in gw1, and coordinated burst is not that hard relative to gaming in general.
I take it you never played GvG at a high lvl. Movement (positioning to be more exact) was one of the most important part of the game in guild wars. A squishy caster could easily die from standing a meter too far. And the monks needed godly reflexes (to get prot spells into a 0.25s cast spike etc.) and/or good reading of the game to guess who they are spiking. The strategic aspect of the game was very high due to having the need to do as much as possible with as little as possible (so few skills you can take and so many skills/builds you have to be able to counter somehow). And a lot of the time you simply couldnt fit all the needed skills to counter certain builds at all and had to rely on just playing tacticly better then your opponent or abusing their builds weaknesses like spike builds generally not being able to split well and thus being at disadvantage against a split. The energy pools of your monks were very important too. During pushes you are bound to take a lot more dmg then when just hanging around the flag and burn trough your monks energy. The flag games could get very tricky too sometimes.
There are a lot of small things you really dont notice about GvG in gw if you havent played it a lot on high lvl (in top20. Prefebly top10 in the ladder) a lot.
That's the thing, I have played it at a high level, as with other pvp games (specifically mmos though gw1 was not an mmo) and the game was really an easier version of pvp relative to a lot of the more hardcore games. But people that played gw1 always respond in a similar fashion as you did, they want to glorify the game they spent time on, and usually they have next to no experience in high level pvp in other games. You can talk about positioning but other games also have emphasis on positioning, and in gw1 the movement is more primitive and limiting, so it really isn't hard to reach the max potential for how a character can move. It's funny though cause a lot of gw1 players try to make it out like the movement and positioning in gw1 was as intense as say a game like quake, when the gameplay and actual character movement was quite slow and limited, jumping wasn't even in. GvG had strats/tactics they just weren't as deep as other games, but because gw1 players enjoyed gw1 they try to make it seem like it was extremely complex, maybe complex relative to their skill level, but not relative to the standard of some of the more solid pvp mmos. It's hard to convince people who are biased about how things actually are at times though, but when gw2 comes out, and you have exposure to the mmorpg market, since gw2 unlike gw1 is actually an mmorpg, you are going to see a lot of the gw1 players that thought they were good at pvp, get phased out. While it doesn't always hold true, truly gifted gamers tend to be universally good at a wide array of games. I've been a part of the gw1 community, a lot of the "top" players have their little posse but they always seem to blow at most other games they attempt to play, and then all they do is QQ about the game they tried to play and talk about how the game wasn't good enough for them, and not the other way around. Those kinds of elitist communities are quite sheltered and they tend to die off when people just come to the realization that they aren't as good as they thought.
That's the thing, I have played it at a high level, as with other pvp games (specifically mmos though gw1 was not an mmo) and the game was really an easier version of pvp relative to a lot of the more hardcore games. But people that played gw1 always respond in a similar fashion as you did, they want to glorify the game they spent time on, and usually they have next to no experience in high level pvp in other games. You can talk about positioning but other games also have emphasis on positioning, and in gw1 the movement is more primitive and limiting, so it really isn't hard to reach the max potential for how a character can move. It's funny though cause a lot of gw1 players try to make it out like the movement and positioning in gw1 was as intense as say a game like quake, when the gameplay and actual character movement was quite slow and limited, jumping wasn't even in. GvG had strats/tactics they just weren't as deep as other games, but because gw1 players enjoyed gw1 they try to make it seem like it was extremely complex, maybe complex relative to their skill level, but not relative to the standard of some of the more solid pvp mmos. It's hard to convince people who are biased about how things actually are at times though, but when gw2 comes out, and you have exposure to the mmorpg market, since gw2 unlike gw1 is actually an mmorpg, you are going to see a lot of the gw1 players that thought they were good at pvp, get phased out. While it doesn't always hold true, truly gifted gamers tend to be universally good at a wide array of games. I've been a part of the gw1 community, a lot of the "top" players have their little posse but they always seem to blow at most other games they attempt to play, and then all they do is QQ about the game they tried to play and talk about how the game wasn't good enough for them, and not the other way around. Those kinds of elitist communities are quite sheltered and they tend to die off when people just come to the realization that they aren't as good as they thought.
Well i have only played pvp in a couple mmos (uo, eve and mo) and don't really think their pvp to be anymore complex, "strategic" or harder to master then what gw had to offer. gw just forced you to play with a group of 8 thus needing you to have 7 friends that are at around the same lvl in skill in it to do any good. And from the fps side i've only played ut and ut2004 at a "high" enough lvl worth of mentioning. Sure in them aiming and movement are a lot more important then in gw (you dont aim in gw and movement is simple) but they have nothing to the strategic side of gw. Just becouse something is more simpler/limited doesnt mean its easier/doesnt need skill. Just look at something like Go. Its one of the most hardest boardgames to master there is and it involves you putting a single black or white rock on a table on your turn. Nothing else.
edit: Another important thing about pvp in gw was that it offered a level playing field (you dont get stronger for farming gear 10h/day) and offer somekind of a resemblance of balance with frequeant balance changes to change the metagame.
That's the thing, I have played it at a high level, as with other pvp games (specifically mmos though gw1 was not an mmo) and the game was really an easier version of pvp relative to a lot of the more hardcore games. But people that played gw1 always respond in a similar fashion as you did, they want to glorify the game they spent time on, and usually they have next to no experience in high level pvp in other games. You can talk about positioning but other games also have emphasis on positioning, and in gw1 the movement is more primitive and limiting, so it really isn't hard to reach the max potential for how a character can move. It's funny though cause a lot of gw1 players try to make it out like the movement and positioning in gw1 was as intense as say a game like quake, when the gameplay and actual character movement was quite slow and limited, jumping wasn't even in. GvG had strats/tactics they just weren't as deep as other games, but because gw1 players enjoyed gw1 they try to make it seem like it was extremely complex, maybe complex relative to their skill level, but not relative to the standard of some of the more solid pvp mmos. It's hard to convince people who are biased about how things actually are at times though, but when gw2 comes out, and you have exposure to the mmorpg market, since gw2 unlike gw1 is actually an mmorpg, you are going to see a lot of the gw1 players that thought they were good at pvp, get phased out. While it doesn't always hold true, truly gifted gamers tend to be universally good at a wide array of games. I've been a part of the gw1 community, a lot of the "top" players have their little posse but they always seem to blow at most other games they attempt to play, and then all they do is QQ about the game they tried to play and talk about how the game wasn't good enough for them, and not the other way around. Those kinds of elitist communities are quite sheltered and they tend to die off when people just come to the realization that they aren't as good as they thought.
Well i have only played pvp in a couple mmos (uo, eve and mo) and don't really think their pvp to be anymore complex, "strategic" or harder to master then what gw had to offer. gw just forced you to play with a group of 8 thus needing you to have 7 friends that are at around the same lvl in skill in it to do any good. And from the fps side i've only played ut and ut2004 at a "high" enough lvl worth of mentioning. Sure in them aiming and movement are a lot more important then in gw (you dont aim in gw and movement is simple) but they have nothing to the strategic side of gw. Just becouse something is more simpler/limited doesnt mean its easier/doesnt need skill. Just look at something like Go. Its one of the most hardest boardgames to master there is and it involves you putting a single black or white rock on a table on your turn. Nothing else.
edit: Most important thing about pvp in gw was that it offered a level playing field (you dont get stronger for farming gear 10h/day) and offer somekind of a resemblance of balance.
But the depth behind go comes from the complex options of strategies you can take. As I said before GW1 had neither a high skill cap for movement, nor a high skill cap for strategy, because there wasn't much depth, relative to other pvp games (primarily mmos) GW1 was designed for casual players, but all players want to consider themselves good, and some of those casuals became hardcore players (in gw) and want to glorify how skillful what they do is. But I mean if you've played games with more complex strategy and better movement systems gw1 is like tic-tac-toe.
But the depth behind go comes from the complex options of strategies you can take. As I said before GW1 had neither a high skill cap for movement, nor a high skill cap for strategy, because there wasn't much depth, relative to other pvp games (primarily mmos) GW1 was designed for casual players, but all players want to consider themselves good, and some of those casuals became hardcore players (in gw) and want to glorify how skillful what they do is. But I mean if you've played games with more complex strategy and better movement systems gw1 is like tic-tac-toe.
But gw does have alot of strategy. Sure if you only play some cookiecutter spike build that you read from the forums it might take a bit away from that (mostly just due to spikebuilds not leaving you with much of a choice at all in terms of what you can do during a game but on the other hand that is a strategic choice too). But once you start making your own builds and tweaking them and learning howto adapt your playstyle against diffrent builds it starts to get a lot more harder.
But the depth behind go comes from the complex options of strategies you can take. As I said before GW1 had neither a high skill cap for movement, nor a high skill cap for strategy, because there wasn't much depth, relative to other pvp games (primarily mmos) GW1 was designed for casual players, but all players want to consider themselves good, and some of those casuals became hardcore players (in gw) and want to glorify how skillful what they do is. But I mean if you've played games with more complex strategy and better movement systems gw1 is like tic-tac-toe.
But gw does have alot of strategy. Sure if you only play some cookiecutter spike build that you read from the forums it might take a bit away from that (mostly just due to spikebuilds not leaving you with much of a choice at all in terms of what you can do during a game but on the other hand that is a strategic choice too). But once you start making your own builds and tweaking them and learning howto adapt your playstyle against diffrent builds it starts to get a lot more harder.
It's harder relative to the easy mode version of gw1 pvp, it isn't harder relative to top pvp games.
But the depth behind go comes from the complex options of strategies you can take. As I said before GW1 had neither a high skill cap for movement, nor a high skill cap for strategy, because there wasn't much depth, relative to other pvp games (primarily mmos) GW1 was designed for casual players, but all players want to consider themselves good, and some of those casuals became hardcore players (in gw) and want to glorify how skillful what they do is. But I mean if you've played games with more complex strategy and better movement systems gw1 is like tic-tac-toe.
But gw does have alot of strategy. Sure if you only play some cookiecutter spike build that you read from the forums it might take a bit away from that (mostly just due to spikebuilds not leaving you with much of a choice at all in terms of what you can do during a game but on the other hand that is a strategic choice too). But once you start making your own builds and tweaking them and learning howto adapt your playstyle against diffrent builds it starts to get a lot more harder.
It's harder relative to the easy mode version of gw1 pvp, it isn't harder relative to top pvp games.
It's just as hard as any other pvp game i've played. I'm not going around yelling that its the most hardest to master uber pvp game ever made (qw holds that place for me) but i think its just as hard/competetive as any other arena style group pvp game there is out there. As soon as you can win a fight by bringing more players it stops being competetive for me.
You've played GW pvp at a high level eh Robert? Do you mind telling me what guild you were with? What team did you have? What position did you end up in ladder play? You may or may not have valid points but saying you have played high level pvp is easy to do. I just want to see if you have any credibility in this regard. What other mmos have you participated in high level competitive pvp? I will assume WoW. If so, what character, realm, and season did you participate? What rank in either game did you get? If you have really played competitive pvp at the highest level then it will be easy to prove and lend a lot more weight to what you say.
I have been hearing a lot of DAOC vets saying that to them this is the closest thing to DAOC to look forward to. Am I getting this right?
I've never played DAOC but I always hear about how amazing the RVR was, so I wish I had played it back in the day. I am wondering how much you find to be similar from what we know so far? What are your expectations?
i really want to say only the concept with a 3 faction system will be similar...nothing else the core game play will be much different.
will it work like DAoC and produce a "realm pride"effect I don't know since you have switching between servers but i sure hope it can bring back some found memories and help me create a lot more
Server switching? Is that anything like the worlds in Runescape?
My understanding is that players can easily move between servers (though maybe not as effortlessly as Runescape).
So, it's hard to see GW2 fostering "realm pride" like DAoC did. It seems pride will be directed towards your guild, that will in turn fight for whatever server you happen to be on.
That's perfectly fine. The main complaint I hear is from people saying that stuff like this makes it impossible to have good "Enemy rivals", but I say whatever, this is supposed to be a war anyways. You aren't supposed to kill fishbob123 once, then have him take revenge on you 10 times over after rezing.
It will actually be nice to constantly be fighting fresh faces everyday. Of course, your allies stay the same, but the enemies being different will make it seem more like a endless/nameless enemy swarm.
also something to add since one can switch servers i feel that if the server you are on is facing 2 others you prob wont be able to switch to the other ones you are fighting
Comments
I'm pretty sure that the OP's question was merely about the similarities in the RvR/faction PvP between GW2 and DAoC and how much they'd be alike, and not about whether GW2 will be a DAoC or have the same gameplay - which evidently they haven't.
When it comes to RvR PvP, it looks to me that GW2's World vs World PvP comes closer to DAoC's RvR than any other MMORPG so far has.
NB: and could you ppl please stop quoting whole quote chains in your posts? It's unneeded.
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."
Since when has server vs server combat on a massive scale been anything but casual? Join a zerg, gank someone who's lost, fire some catapults, kill some stationary NPC's at a mine. It's the casual gamers dreamland and has never been about how good you are on an individual level.
The skilled people who's looking for an e-sport experience will play the competative PvP where your skill on an individual level and team level will be truly tested.
Ever heard of roaming pvp? Some people took pvp quite seriously before things like 5v5 formats etc were implemented. Both have their place though. I honestly feel roaming pvp is better suited for what mmorpgs should be about though. Also if GW1 is any indicator the competitive arena based pvp will be pretty simple, limited skill bars do that to games, but if you ask any fanatical gw1 player they obviously will claim the game was rocket science even though the movement was primitive and the skillbar was extremely limited.So you're implying that DAoC's RvR was hardcore while GW's arena style PvP that hosts monthly tournaments for money that I'm sure you've never been close to even qualifying for is casual? Did I mention the World Championships with up to $50k prizepots. I'm sorry but it's quite easy to see what kind of player you are and what you're looking for and it's not competativeness that you want.
The problem with GW was that it was too hard to see what was going on for casual D&D style PvPers like you. Frankly it was pretty boring to watch a game and that was probably what kept you from even trying to get in to that scene.
Not enough gear for you buddy?
You have me completely misread, which doesn't surprise me. First off, throwing money at tourneys does not actually speak to the quality of the game. For example gw1 pvp was very slowpaced, movement was slow and limited, skill bars were limited, and the rate at which things died was slow, it relied heavily on spiking, and coordinated burst while it requires some coordination, is not some epicly difficult task to pull off. I mean you couldn't even jump in gw1 and it was littered with clickers. I also never said rvr was more hardcore than arena type pvp, I just said that in an mmorpg world pvp fits better than instanced XvX formats because they tend not to be very massive in nature. What it really sounds like is that you are a gw1 enthusiast that exaggerates how challenging that game actually was. I didn't lose interest in gw cause it was "too hard" i lost interest in it because it was "too easy" and I had played much more challenging games before it. I've also always been a top level player in every game i've played consistently so please don't come at me like i'm some typical carebear baddy.The fact that you bring up the limited skill bar as an example as to why it was bad really show's that you lack a basic understanding of the game and that this conversation is useless. More skillz = more 1337 right?
I was a bit of a GW1 enthusiast earlier because it's the only MMORPG that has given me a really tense team based PvP experience that brought me close to the feelings a really tense CS 1.6 or Q3 match could give me, or StarCraft for that matter even if I never was any good at it.
I did quit and that was mainly because of the movement issues you mentioned and that's pretty much the only valid reason you've given me as to why GW1 was lacking. Even if that complaint probably came for all the wrong reasons aswell. Dogding, positioning and movement still played a vital role in GW1 even if it was pretty lacking on an entertainment level.
ArenaNet has realized this and that's why I'm pretty sure that GW2 is the first MMORPG that has a legitemate chance to break this genre in to the E-sport scene for real. A scene I'm sure I'll never see you in.
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play.
Depends on your definition of skill. Is fast reflex a skill? Is hand-eye coordination a skill? Sorta like people often debate what is harder, blitz chess or typical tourney chess.
Would you care to elaborate on what part of that is trolling? Or do you just accuse people of trolling when they shut your arguments down.You know the fact that you imply that a game built for e-sport needs an extremely high skill cap kinda just killed it. Good luck in your hardcore RvR environment of choice though. I'm sure you'll find plenty of noobs to gank and feel hardcore.
Well first off a game should have a high skill cap if it's to be played competitively. Second off, you have misread me again, i gain no pleasure beating bad players, i am a competitor, i like being challenged by skilled players.It depends if you think knowledge is a skill. Much of video game playing is knowledge. With PVE anyone can apply that knowledge to the game. In PVP you have to deal with the unpredictable so there is that added element (although, strangely enough the better the team is at high level pvp, the more predictable they are).
Now, I'm willing to bet that you could have many more professional baseball players able to play wow at a high level in pvp than the reverse. In fact, I would be absolutely shocked if you had a professional wow player who would be able to play professional baseball. So in essence, the skillset to play baseball is much greater than to play wow. That is just an example. The reason I bring this up is because essentially Baseball is a very simple sport. And yet by your definition, the simpler it is the less skillful it is. The same thing applies to the Chess analogy.
You say anyone can apply knowledge but in my over-a-decade of mmorpg experience i can tell you everyone has their limits. Most mmorpg players post-wow would not have survived in an environment like eq1 raiding. Also you can theorycraft all you want but if you took the percentage of professional baseball players who can hit a 100mph fastball, relative to the number of people playing baseball, and then applied that percentile to wow pvp relative to all of the people playing wow pvp. You would probably find that it isn't really so easy for the baseball players to reach that specific level of skill in wow pvp.Also the mechanics are different, someone could blindly swing at a 100mph baseball and they may connect and hit it. As opposed to high level wow pvp, where if you don't know exactly what you are doing, and do it well, you have literally zero chance of winning.
A game made for competative purposes doesnt need any kind of levels. Equal footing is what it's all about. They could call that level 1 or 764 or they could even remove the XP bar and little number in front of your name.
Levels are useful as a tool for for PvE players so that they can know how far in to a game they are.
Good night by the way.
Since when has server vs server combat on a massive scale been anything but casual? Join a zerg, gank someone who's lost, fire some catapults, kill some stationary NPC's at a mine. It's the casual gamers dreamland and has never been about how good you are on an individual level.
The skilled people who's looking for an e-sport experience will play the competative PvP where your skill on an individual level and team level will be truly tested.
Ever heard of roaming pvp? Some people took pvp quite seriously before things like 5v5 formats etc were implemented. Both have their place though. I honestly feel roaming pvp is better suited for what mmorpgs should be about though. Also if GW1 is any indicator the competitive arena based pvp will be pretty simple, limited skill bars do that to games, but if you ask any fanatical gw1 player they obviously will claim the game was rocket science even though the movement was primitive and the skillbar was extremely limited.So you're implying that DAoC's RvR was hardcore while GW's arena style PvP that hosts monthly tournaments for money that I'm sure you've never been close to even qualifying for is casual? Did I mention the World Championships with up to $50k prizepots. I'm sorry but it's quite easy to see what kind of player you are and what you're looking for and it's not competativeness that you want.
The problem with GW was that it was too hard to see what was going on for casual D&D style PvPers like you. Frankly it was pretty boring to watch a game and that was probably what kept you from even trying to get in to that scene.
Not enough gear for you buddy?
You have me completely misread, which doesn't surprise me. First off, throwing money at tourneys does not actually speak to the quality of the game. For example gw1 pvp was very slowpaced, movement was slow and limited, skill bars were limited, and the rate at which things died was slow, it relied heavily on spiking, and coordinated burst while it requires some coordination, is not some epicly difficult task to pull off. I mean you couldn't even jump in gw1 and it was littered with clickers. I also never said rvr was more hardcore than arena type pvp, I just said that in an mmorpg world pvp fits better than instanced XvX formats because they tend not to be very massive in nature. What it really sounds like is that you are a gw1 enthusiast that exaggerates how challenging that game actually was. I didn't lose interest in gw cause it was "too hard" i lost interest in it because it was "too easy" and I had played much more challenging games before it. I've also always been a top level player in every game i've played consistently so please don't come at me like i'm some typical carebear baddy.The fact that you bring up the limited skill bar as an example as to why it was bad really show's that you lack a basic understanding of the game and that this conversation is useless. More skillz = more 1337 right?
I was a bit of a GW1 enthusiast earlier because it's the only MMORPG that has given me a really tense team based PvP experience that brought me close to the feelings a really tense CS 1.6 or Q3 match could give me, or StarCraft for that matter even if I never was any good at it.
I did quit and that was mainly because of the movement issues you mentioned and that's pretty much the only valid reason you've given me as to why GW1 was lacking. Even if that complaint probably came for all the wrong reasons aswell. Dogding, positioning and movement still played a vital role in GW1 even if it was pretty lacking on an entertainment level.
ArenaNet has realized this and that's why I'm pretty sure that GW2 is the first MMORPG that has a legitemate chance to break this genre in to the E-sport scene for real. A scene I'm sure I'll never see you in.
1. WoW already broke into esports, it had a lot more support for it for a few years tournament wise (which seems to be what you value) than most esports. 2. I'm going to be blunt with you, the limited skillbar in gw1 made for very simplified play.
Depends on your definition of skill. Is fast reflex a skill? Is hand-eye coordination a skill? Sorta like people often debate what is harder, blitz chess or typical tourney chess.
Would you care to elaborate on what part of that is trolling? Or do you just accuse people of trolling when they shut your arguments down.You know the fact that you imply that a game built for e-sport needs an extremely high skill cap kinda just killed it. Good luck in your hardcore RvR environment of choice though. I'm sure you'll find plenty of noobs to gank and feel hardcore.
Well first off a game should have a high skill cap if it's to be played competitively. Second off, you have misread me again, i gain no pleasure beating bad players, i am a competitor, i like being challenged by skilled players.A game made for competative purposes doesnt need any kind of levels. Equal footing is what it's all about. They could call that level 1 or 764 or they could even remove the XP bar and little number in front of your name.
Levels are useful as a tool for for PvE players so that they can know how far in to a game they are.
I think you have blatantly misunderstood what i mean by skill levels and skill caps relative to esports.Title of thread: How many expect this to be like DAoC?
I expect nothing to be "like" DAoC RvR or DAoC as a whole, therefore this will not be like DAoC.
If the game included three entirely different worlds (as opposed to continents) each with an entirely different culture, set of classes, environment, story, and feel, then had all three of the worlds fighting in a battlegrounds similar to those in DAoC for control of relics and large dungeons, I would agree that they are similar.
However, that is not the case... so I do not expect them to be similar.
I would agree with this. I think the comparison comes from the 3 "faction" (world, whatever) competing in a huge landscape. It also has RTS elements, or so they said. I'm looking forward to it. But you are right in that there is no lore reason behind the WvW realm. It is just a fun aspect of the game.
I'll try to inject something constructive into the conversation, but as per usual it is likely too sensible a comment to be noticed by the rabid haters.
Here is the real fact:
-If you are not a fan of Guild Wars 2 in the context of this conversation, you should also realize you do not know hardly anything about the WvWvW combat in GW2. Therefore your point is null, your opinion however, dualy noted.
-If you are a fan of Guild Wars 2 in this context of this conversation, you should also realize that the people attacking it are sticking to their guns, sure they have likely done much less research than you up to this point - but you won't budge them until you show them game play.
What I am really trying to say is...
A: If you don't like Guild Wars 2, start a new thread about it - this thread is about GW2 + DAoC, not GW2 vs DAoC.
B: If you don't like the comments about how "GW1 was good PvP", you should likely realize it was a team game and the amount of organization on a team level alongside the choice of skills on a team level made it more complex than you are making it out to seem. I am not arguing that the game takes a long time to master, it doesn't but what it does take is timing and coordination - something I recall DAoC and Shadowbane being centered around.
TL:DR = Some people define complexity involving coordinated team play you obviously do not, /conversation
C: If you DO like Guild Wars 2 but absolutely feel the need to defend it with your precious time against people who are so closed minded of their surroundings that they would actually feel the need to come here in a forum... dedicated to discussion about a game and argue that they won't be touching it until they can sample the goods farther - you are an idiot.
E: Thanks for reading, though this is probably too much sense for some of you - see you later.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
The game that I think will come closest to the 3-way faction PvP as seen in DAoC is The Secret World, where the 3 factions Templars, Illuminati and Dragon will fight it out in specific areas over resources and control.
Still, I'm looking forward to the world vs world PvP of GW2, even if it's casual, the fact that you fight against other world servers each week and that there are rankings certainly has a strong competitive element and server community bonding effect.
Besides, more than 2 factions in a MMORPG's PvP is the way to go.
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."
I have a new quote for your signature.
"He who thinks himself wise, Oh heavens! Is a great fool."
This thread was obviously about whether or not we expect this game to be like DAoC, with a highlight on RvR/WvW.
So, the context of this thread is anything relating to those similarities (though small at the moment), and whether we expect it to be like DAoC. Therefore, this thread doesn't favor DAoC + GW2 or DAoC vs. GW2, just the primary question posed by the OP.
Expectations are usually made without all of the facts, therefore whether or not everyone has all of the facts is of little import.
The only problem is, everything you are saying is "No, this game will not be DAoC, no matter how hard it tries".
Therefore you are stating a definite, waiting to either be proven right or wrong.
This thread is not DAoC vs GW2, no matter how much you want it to be. I understand you love DAoC, and I also understand you think little about GW2 in the form of WvWvW. You are simply biasing assumptions on your prideful dedication to a relic.
And name calling? Give me a break.
Also, I do or I don't, Not, It is, or it isn't - BIG difference.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
I'm not saying that GW2 cannot be like DAoC no matter how hard it tries, i'm saying if it doesn't meet the particular criteria it will not be "like" DAoC in any way other than the fact that one collective is fighting another. I stated above quite clearly that if it doesn't contain those basic parts present in DAoC and DAoC RvR, it will not be like DAoC.
If you would read more carefully you also would have noticed that I stated this game would never "BE" DAoC, rather than "BE LIKE" DAoC. The OP's question is whether this will "BE LIKE" DAoC, and given the current information I can safely say it will not be like DAoC as a whole.
I am not basing my "assumption" on simply being prideful to a relic, you should be less selective of what you read. It's the game as a whole that made DAoC RvR what it was. If GW2 takes one or two criteria from DAoC it will not provide the same experience, and that is the truth.
Any assumptions that I think lowly of GW2 are also completely wrong, and nothing more than straw grabbing.
This thread IS about anything pertaining to similarities between the two games and what we expect, whether it pits the two against each other or looks for similarities, end of story. Anything to the contrary is just wrong, no argument needed.
Namecalling? Who was namecalling? Give ME a break.
>mfw namecalling O.o
So, essentially, by your own admission: you know very little about the PvP aspect of the game, you've never participated in playing it - ever - yet, for some reason, you're qualified to make the judgement that "no game" - which includes Guild Wars 2 - will "ever come close to DAoC in terms of gameplay and RvR?" The point of your post is, quite frankly, stupid - that's my point. I honestly couldn't care two hoots about my apparent "e-peen.". Whether Guild Wars 2 succeeds or fails doesn't affect me in the least. If the latter is the case, that's on ArenaNet's back. It's rather rich that you, who apparently possesses the ability to predict the future, is accusing others of being a fanboy, on the other hand.
You make it sound as if I've decided positively on Guild Wars 2's PvP. I have not, as I know very little about it. I love the other aspects of the game that have been revealed, but PvP is yet to be seen.
I know as much about the PvP aspect of the game as everyone else. That deems me qualified enough (as everyone else) to make a prediction on whether or not this game will be like or will not be like DAoC and DAoC RvR. You can read my other posts for more information on why, but in small terms it does not currently meet the criteria needed to bring about the same experience as DAoC RvR.
I stated that no game will ever "BE" DAoC, and that the best new games can do is model themselves after what DAoC is/was. It takes a very very similar setup to DAoC to achieve the same experience, which is why I stated that the only game that would come close is a DAoC 2.
I couldn't care less whether you think my comment was "stupid" as quite frankly it has no basis other than what you think given that you are now burdened with having to reply to it.
Whether or not is succeeds doesn't affect you? That is quite strange, as in your last post it was used as a means to prove (in the future) that GW2 was "better" and would sell more than DAoC has ever sold. Like I said, given what you said, I find that quite strange...
I don't possess the ability to predict the future, only to make educted guesses.
I find it "rich" (I just said rich (Notice again that I just used the word rich)) that you think I ever accused anyone of being a fanboy. Feel free to point me to the cave in which that comment resides, as I can't seem to find it... I'll venture to say that such a comment doesn't exist (and that's not a prediction).
I take it you never played GvG at a high lvl. Movement (positioning to be more exact) was one of the most important part of the game in guild wars. A squishy caster could easily die from standing a meter too far. And the monks needed godly reflexes (to get prot spells into a 0.25s cast spike etc.) and/or good reading of the game to guess who they are spiking. The strategic aspect of the game was very high due to having the need to do as much as possible with as little as possible (so few skills you can take and so many skills/builds you have to be able to counter somehow). And a lot of the time you simply couldnt fit all the needed skills to counter certain builds at all and had to rely on just playing tacticly better then your opponent or abusing their builds weaknesses like spike builds generally not being able to split well and thus being at disadvantage against a split. The energy pools of your monks were very important too. During pushes you are bound to take a lot more dmg then when just hanging around the flag and burn trough your monks energy. The flag games could get very tricky too sometimes.
There are a lot of small things you really dont notice about GvG in gw if you havent played it a lot on high lvl (in top20. Prefebly top10 in the ladder) a lot.
I take it you never played GvG at a high lvl. Movement (positioning to be more exact) was one of the most important part of the game in guild wars. A squishy caster could easily die from standing a meter too far. And the monks needed godly reflexes (to get prot spells into a 0.25s cast spike etc.) and/or good reading of the game to guess who they are spiking. The strategic aspect of the game was very high due to having the need to do as much as possible with as little as possible (so few skills you can take and so many skills/builds you have to be able to counter somehow). And a lot of the time you simply couldnt fit all the needed skills to counter certain builds at all and had to rely on just playing tacticly better then your opponent or abusing their builds weaknesses like spike builds generally not being able to split well and thus being at disadvantage against a split. The energy pools of your monks were very important too. During pushes you are bound to take a lot more dmg then when just hanging around the flag and burn trough your monks energy. The flag games could get very tricky too sometimes.
There are a lot of small things you really dont notice about GvG in gw if you havent played it a lot on high lvl (in top20. Prefebly top10 in the ladder) a lot.
That's the thing, I have played it at a high level, as with other pvp games (specifically mmos though gw1 was not an mmo) and the game was really an easier version of pvp relative to a lot of the more hardcore games. But people that played gw1 always respond in a similar fashion as you did, they want to glorify the game they spent time on, and usually they have next to no experience in high level pvp in other games. You can talk about positioning but other games also have emphasis on positioning, and in gw1 the movement is more primitive and limiting, so it really isn't hard to reach the max potential for how a character can move. It's funny though cause a lot of gw1 players try to make it out like the movement and positioning in gw1 was as intense as say a game like quake, when the gameplay and actual character movement was quite slow and limited, jumping wasn't even in. GvG had strats/tactics they just weren't as deep as other games, but because gw1 players enjoyed gw1 they try to make it seem like it was extremely complex, maybe complex relative to their skill level, but not relative to the standard of some of the more solid pvp mmos. It's hard to convince people who are biased about how things actually are at times though, but when gw2 comes out, and you have exposure to the mmorpg market, since gw2 unlike gw1 is actually an mmorpg, you are going to see a lot of the gw1 players that thought they were good at pvp, get phased out. While it doesn't always hold true, truly gifted gamers tend to be universally good at a wide array of games. I've been a part of the gw1 community, a lot of the "top" players have their little posse but they always seem to blow at most other games they attempt to play, and then all they do is QQ about the game they tried to play and talk about how the game wasn't good enough for them, and not the other way around. Those kinds of elitist communities are quite sheltered and they tend to die off when people just come to the realization that they aren't as good as they thought.Well i have only played pvp in a couple mmos (uo, eve and mo) and don't really think their pvp to be anymore complex, "strategic" or harder to master then what gw had to offer. gw just forced you to play with a group of 8 thus needing you to have 7 friends that are at around the same lvl in skill in it to do any good. And from the fps side i've only played ut and ut2004 at a "high" enough lvl worth of mentioning. Sure in them aiming and movement are a lot more important then in gw (you dont aim in gw and movement is simple) but they have nothing to the strategic side of gw. Just becouse something is more simpler/limited doesnt mean its easier/doesnt need skill. Just look at something like Go. Its one of the most hardest boardgames to master there is and it involves you putting a single black or white rock on a table on your turn. Nothing else.
edit: Another important thing about pvp in gw was that it offered a level playing field (you dont get stronger for farming gear 10h/day) and offer somekind of a resemblance of balance with frequeant balance changes to change the metagame.
Well i have only played pvp in a couple mmos (uo, eve and mo) and don't really think their pvp to be anymore complex, "strategic" or harder to master then what gw had to offer. gw just forced you to play with a group of 8 thus needing you to have 7 friends that are at around the same lvl in skill in it to do any good. And from the fps side i've only played ut and ut2004 at a "high" enough lvl worth of mentioning. Sure in them aiming and movement are a lot more important then in gw (you dont aim in gw and movement is simple) but they have nothing to the strategic side of gw. Just becouse something is more simpler/limited doesnt mean its easier/doesnt need skill. Just look at something like Go. Its one of the most hardest boardgames to master there is and it involves you putting a single black or white rock on a table on your turn. Nothing else.
edit: Most important thing about pvp in gw was that it offered a level playing field (you dont get stronger for farming gear 10h/day) and offer somekind of a resemblance of balance.
But the depth behind go comes from the complex options of strategies you can take. As I said before GW1 had neither a high skill cap for movement, nor a high skill cap for strategy, because there wasn't much depth, relative to other pvp games (primarily mmos)GW1 was designed for casual players, but all players want to consider themselves good, and some of those casuals became hardcore players (in gw) and want to glorify how skillful what they do is. But I mean if you've played games with more complex strategy and better movement systems gw1 is like tic-tac-toe.
But gw does have alot of strategy. Sure if you only play some cookiecutter spike build that you read from the forums it might take a bit away from that (mostly just due to spikebuilds not leaving you with much of a choice at all in terms of what you can do during a game but on the other hand that is a strategic choice too). But once you start making your own builds and tweaking them and learning howto adapt your playstyle against diffrent builds it starts to get a lot more harder.
But gw does have alot of strategy. Sure if you only play some cookiecutter spike build that you read from the forums it might take a bit away from that (mostly just due to spikebuilds not leaving you with much of a choice at all in terms of what you can do during a game but on the other hand that is a strategic choice too). But once you start making your own builds and tweaking them and learning howto adapt your playstyle against diffrent builds it starts to get a lot more harder.
It's harder relative to the easy mode version of gw1 pvp, it isn't harder relative to top pvp games.It's just as hard as any other pvp game i've played. I'm not going around yelling that its the most hardest to master uber pvp game ever made (qw holds that place for me) but i think its just as hard/competetive as any other arena style group pvp game there is out there. As soon as you can win a fight by bringing more players it stops being competetive for me.
You've played GW pvp at a high level eh Robert? Do you mind telling me what guild you were with? What team did you have? What position did you end up in ladder play? You may or may not have valid points but saying you have played high level pvp is easy to do. I just want to see if you have any credibility in this regard. What other mmos have you participated in high level competitive pvp? I will assume WoW. If so, what character, realm, and season did you participate? What rank in either game did you get? If you have really played competitive pvp at the highest level then it will be easy to prove and lend a lot more weight to what you say.
also something to add since one can switch servers i feel that if the server you are on is facing 2 others you prob wont be able to switch to the other ones you are fighting
There was said to be a cooldown for switching worlds. Whether that is days or weeks, we do not yet know.