Anyone who doesn't think that GW1 PvP isn't about skill hasn't played the game. I'll admit that there has always been the gimmick build over the years that people bad at PvP tend to flock to in order to win. Other times, guild will tailor their team setup to combat certain tactics/builds used by a Guild they know they're going up against in a tournament and this led to the term "Build Wars." But the fact remains that good players on a balanced team can not just beat, but dominate those teams even when at a severe disvantage in build. Explain to me how can they do that if pvp takes no skill?
As for PvE, most of it is easily doable in order to let everyone get through the main storyline without undue effort. However, there are elite areas such as 12 man The Deep, Urgoz. Then there are 8 man DoA, UW, FoW, and dungeons. Aside from gimmicky speed clear groups, these require a more "hardcore" team setup, especially DoA, The Deep, UW, certain dungeons and Urgoz. From what it sounds like, dungeons in GW2 are going to mirror or be greater than the difficultly of these elite areas in GW1. Although the rewards are about money/skins rather than better gear (Which imo makes for a better game because it's soooooo less grind based).
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
We are all waiting Robert Dinh. Don't disappear on us now with your "objective" opinion. You've contributed so much to this community... so much so that no one takes you seriously and can see right through your biased opinion on GW2.
To stick to the OP, I believe it will appeal to 75%+ of MMORPG gamers in general, but not to the hardcore MMORPG PvE crowd. They will never be pleased with anything due to their elitist gamer egos (see the definition of a troll). They all have the mentality that since they have been playing MMO's for 12+ years that they know what would make the best MMO. Unfortunately, if this was the case, we would all be running around grinding endlessly in every MMO in the future.
In all honesty... who cares if it appeals to the hardcore MMORPG gamers. In fact, I hope the hardcore ppl hate it. The less obnoxious elitists, the better. Without naming any names, I'm sure you can read through this thread and figure out who the "elitists" are. Do you really want to be playing and interacting with some of those people?
Play a game because YOU are interested in it... not because others are. You'll be much happier and much more entertained.
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
We are all waiting Robert Dinh. Don't disappear on us now with your "objective" opinion. You've contributed so much to this community... so much so that no one takes you seriously and can see right through your biased opinion on GW2.
To stick to the OP, I believe it will appeal to 75%+ of MMORPG gamers in general, but not to the hardcore MMORPG PvE crowd. They will never be pleased with anything due to their elitist gamer egos (see the definition of a troll). They all have the mentality that since they have been playing MMO's for 12+ years that they know what would make the best MMO. Unfortunately, if this was the case, we would all be running around grinding endlessly in every MMO in the future.
Maybe he got reported and banned again for a few days. Besides, looking at his former replies upon your questions until now he didn't provide any facts to back up his claims of playing high PvP, so I doubt he will start doing so in follow up replies. But who knows.
Regarding competitive PvP, I know for a fact that a number of the most competitive, topranking PvP guilds from AoC will reform in GW2, and they're pretty serious about it, planning for it this far before launch.
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."
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
I love it when people like you think you are entitled to people going out of their way just to convince you. I personally don't care about you whatsoever, you either have an understanding for games or you don't, it doesn't matter to me either way.
Originally posted by cyphers
Originally posted by Pernicious
Originally posted by Observe001
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
We are all waiting Robert Dinh. Don't disappear on us now with your "objective" opinion. You've contributed so much to this community... so much so that no one takes you seriously and can see right through your biased opinion on GW2.
To stick to the OP, I believe it will appeal to 75%+ of MMORPG gamers in general, but not to the hardcore MMORPG PvE crowd. They will never be pleased with anything due to their elitist gamer egos (see the definition of a troll). They all have the mentality that since they have been playing MMO's for 12+ years that they know what would make the best MMO. Unfortunately, if this was the case, we would all be running around grinding endlessly in every MMO in the future.
Maybe he got reported and banned again for a few days. Besides, looking at his former replies upon your questions until now he didn't provide any facts to back up his claims of playing high PvP, so I doubt he will start doing so in follow up replies. But who knows.
Regarding competitive PvP, I know for a fact that a number of the most competitive, topranking PvP guilds from AoC will reform in GW2, and they're pretty serious about it, planning for it this far before launch.
People like you crack me up, I am sorry I can't lurk the forums 24-7, and just cause i am not here for a day or two doesn't mean i've been banned. Don't you ever get bored of making all these baseless claims and constantly being incorrect?
Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Also the only battleground where you can summon giant monsters is alterac valley, and the summoning wasn't even originally implemented. Are you trying to say gw1 takes credit for the whole concept of summoning monsters? Sorry mmorpgs have been doing it since long before anet was even established.
The underlined comment suggests that you haven't played GvG in GW. GW equalent for "summoning monsters" in the middle is the flag stand. It is about holding the middleground to get an advantage. You should know this. It might as well be a cooking pot and when it boils the defending team gets yummy soup. How can you be from a top guild if you haven't played GvG?
Clearly you can't even follow your own conversation. The point is that alterac valley has nothing to do with GW1. You are just searching for concepts that you try to attribute to gw1. GW1 wasn't original at all, it was like diablo fused with some concepts you might find in some mmos.
GW1 was not innovative for pvp, it was not innovative for PvE. The game had a fraction of the content that an mmorpg has. As I said before there are loyalists who think gw1 was epic and groundbreaking because their experience is so limited with other games, but those of us that have played tons of games, from fps,rts, morpg to mmorpg, the game doesn't even rank up there.
Agree or disagree it doesn't matter to me, but the better player always has a better grasp on the reality of things.
I'm glad that we provide entertainment for eachother, I must admit that I'm often amused and entertained by your posts as well. As you can see from the latest posts in this thread, you've been missed
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'm glad that we provide entertainment for eachother, I must admit that I'm often amused and entertained by your posts as well. As you can see from the latest posts in this thread, you've been missed
Hey despite our disagreements at least you are showing a more light-hearted side of yourself right now.
RobetDinh, forgetting all the who copied what baloney I have to disagree with your other points. The picking of skills out of many hundreds and making team builds was novel, interesting, and resulted in matches that required skill (rather than 100's of hours gearing up). Your comments about hardcore PvP guilds are questionable when you mention games like EQ & SB.
I too prefer open world stuff and I guess that's likely the reason that GW1 was not as popular as it might have been (but it was likely more popular than you give it credit for). Anyway if you want to be taken seriously as a 'hardcore PvP pundit' you don't want to be mentioning SB or( to a lesser extent) EQI (lowish level - level locked EQII pvp was surprisingly fun at times). Oh and you should be mentioning AC1 (Darktide) & DAoC (though of course the latter is RvR). To dismiss GW1 in the way you have demonstrates either a lack of experience (with it and other games) or a lack of understanding how it all worked and the complexities involved (or maybe a deliberate downplaying of that). So what do you consider decent games for 'hardcore' pvp guilds?
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
I love it when people like you think you are entitled to people going out of their way just to convince you. I personally don't care about you whatsoever, you either have an understanding for games or you don't, it doesn't matter to me either way.
Please do not dodge my request. Please show me detailed proof of your extensive experience in guild wars high end pvp.
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
I love it when people like you think you are entitled to people going out of their way just to convince you. I personally don't care about you whatsoever, you either have an understanding for games or you don't, it doesn't matter to me either way.
Please do not dodge my request. Please show me detailed proof of your extensive experience in guild wars high end pvp.
He won't because he hasn't. He was already debunked at GW2Guru and now came here for his claim. He claimed to be a high end pvper in WoW as well.
Also the only battleground where you can summon giant monsters is alterac valley, and the summoning wasn't even originally implemented. Are you trying to say gw1 takes credit for the whole concept of summoning monsters? Sorry mmorpgs have been doing it since long before anet was even established.
The underlined comment suggests that you haven't played GvG in GW. GW equalent for "summoning monsters" in the middle is the flag stand. It is about holding the middleground to get an advantage. You should know this. It might as well be a cooking pot and when it boils the defending team gets yummy soup. How can you be from a top guild if you haven't played GvG?
Clearly you can't even follow your own conversation. The point is that alterac valley has nothing to do with GW1. You are just searching for concepts that you try to attribute to gw1. GW1 wasn't original at all, it was like diablo fused with some concepts you might find in some mmos.
GW1 was not innovative for pvp, it was not innovative for PvE. The game had a fraction of the content that an mmorpg has. As I said before there are loyalists who think gw1 was epic and groundbreaking because their experience is so limited with other games, but those of us that have played tons of games, from fps,rts, morpg to mmorpg, the game doesn't even rank up there.
Agree or disagree it doesn't matter to me, but the better player always has a better grasp on the reality of things.
The point of my next to last post was to question your experience of high-end GvG in Guild Wars. You fell for that trap. You didn't even respond properly to why you fell for that trap. Clearly someone who knows how GvG works wouldn't make a question like that (marked in red). I've provided proof that I've been involved in high-end GvG tournaments. You have not. In fact, you've dodged every question out there which makes me think you're trying some form of trolling.
I've played plenty of games, seen plenty of games being played and I have friends who have played many games that know me and can tell me what games I will like and what I wont like with great reliability. You'll only have my word for it just like I have your word that you've played many games. It is not very smart to make an assumption that you've played more games than any of the GW fans here because you just cannot know. Your argument is void.
Can you be absolutely certain they didn't take inspiration from GW's PvP? Again, it is well known that Blizzard copies features from other games. I'm only pointing out the vast similarities and the fact that GW did it first. No one knows how it really went.
GW was innovative in regards to PvP because it was one of the first in the genre to specifically design the game with PvP in mind. It is one of the most balanced systems in the genre. It had design choises that made the combat more fast-paced - faster than in other MMORPGs. And they had reduced amount of dice rolls in it. It did not circle around gear-grinding and level - one of first in the genre as well. And they had guild ladder and tournaments.
One with some experience from other games would say that GW is more or less "like Magic the Gathering with real-time, team-based combat". I find it more informative than "Diablo - with some things attached to it".
The comment (marked in light green) is just you being patronizing. -Feel superior now, huh? In addition Your very last comment just doesn't inspire respect or authority. How can we possibly agree with you with the image you're giving? It gives me even more suspicion that you are only here to fish for heated responses - otherwise known as trolling. I advice you to state your case differently next time.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
There's only been a few replies from ppl who don't mind wearing the label of hardcore PvE'er for the purposes of this thread. And some interesting replies but nothing conclusive. It seems to me, in general, GW2 will cater less to this sort of playstyle preference. I don't think the PvP needs to be questioned based on GW or the lack of information from GW2 to date.
Wondering if RobertDinh, if you'd be charitable enough to add your input, what sort of features are missing from GW2 for PvE that you would have personally preferred to make it interesting? Eg lack of perceived challenge?
Obviously the devs need to release a lot more information on End-game eg Continent of Orr, Dungeons eg 5-person size, Collectable rewards that sort of cover this PvE experience to some effect but it seems thin on the ground especially considering the plateaux levelling curve??
On the other end of the argument if GW2 does not provide enough content, or the mechanics are not intuitive enough, it will reaffirm the P2P model.
GW1 did not have a lot of content, we will see where GW2 stands, but if people can max out characters quickly and the end-game is 5man pve and competitive pvp, that isn't going to compete well with other mmorpgs, as pvers make up the bulk of the market, and 5man pve does not really cater to the MMO aspect of MMORPGs.
Sure if you are comparing GW2 to mainstream MMO's then it won't compare at all. It looks to play more like an action type game than an MMO.
I disagree with the 5 man PVE notion. 5 man allows smaller groups to go through the same or similar content without the need to Pug as would be traditional if they were not part of a large guild / alliance. This part applies only to raids. The rest of the game is open to single or group play, after all that stuff scales.
I am sure that GW2 probably won't appeal to the Hardcore PVE as they tend to focus on the endgame specifically the elite raids for item drops. GW2 loot mechanic doesn't work like this. Hardcore also tends toward the grind side of MMO's so again GW2 with its anit-grind probably won't appeal to these players long term. This is not to say they won't purchase it and try it. After all thats what Anet wants is box sales. Once they have it the game will sell itself. The purchases either will like it or not.
Again there is much that differs in GW2 to mainstream MMORPG. GW2 is a deliberate break from the mould. They aren't trying to be like every other MMO. The game appeals to many and because of that some MMO players may not find GW2 exclusive enough.
As for the endgame and 5 man raids. Probably best to wait and see seeing there is zero info this to date.
The game may be constructed in a way where all the elements are put together to make gw2 into gw2 instead of wow.
I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model. Basically just make everything casual friendly and polished and see how many fish you can reel in. Which is fine, every person that likes playing games deserves a game that caters to them, it just isn't really all that groundbreaking.
I am not sure what you are trying to say in relation WoW. Why would Arenanet want to make WoW. It goes against the manifesto and every design choice they have made thus far. Besides the founders were part of the team that made WoW. They learnt from any mistakes that were made there. They left because of a divergence of design and customer service philosophies. Arenanet is structured to look after players / customers first rather than shareholders.
To what lesser extent is GW2 being designed to WoW. It is a new game and by default will have less content that WoW (Which has Burning Crusade, Witch King and soon Cataclysm (Each expansion costing the standard retail price not to mention the ongoing subscription fee). After all the GW2 business model is on box sales ONLY so they will usually release an expansion every 6-12 months.
You continually berate GW2 for what I can see are trivial or made up reasons. You don't think its a break from the mold ok fair enough. Lets look at some of the features or reasons that you have disputed in the past or are relevant.
* You don't think 5 man raid will be epic enough. Thats is you opinion and not the beleif held by the majority I think. 5 man is a break from the mold. Not much to be said here you are entitled to your opinion of course but the size of the party doesn't decide whether something is "hardcore" or not.
* You think that quests and events are the same. Ok so in every other MMO the quests / events run their course if you aren't even online right? WRONG! I can't think of one can you? This in itself IS groundbreaking.
* You think that GW2 caters only to casual gamers. Seriously this is probably the most retarded thing you have ever said. Go do UW in Hard Mode and tell me how easy it wasn't. I seriously doubt you could do it to be honest even in normal (easy) mode. I guess you must have had an anuerysm when you forgot about the $100,000 Arenanet put up as prize money every 6 months for GvG tournaments.
100 grand for casual gamers, yeah good on ya Robert. Think before you speak. I know the level of competition 1st hand at this level. Our guild in the early days of GW went up against GvG against War Machine in auto rank matches. We lasted only 17 min in one particular match and we were ranked 96 on the USA servers. Those guys were machines I tell you. Pity our guild fell apart not long after that.
To think that GW2 would be anything but a step up from the high quality GW pvp experience is in my informed opinion the statement of someone that doesn't have the required GW experience to make that call. Its a real pity that we don't have any specific info on the pvp aspect of GW2 to go into this further. PvP in GW2 will be something of a sleeping giant i feel.
It will cater to the hardcore player. It may not cater to a small demographic of hardcore egomaniac elitists but I don't think anyone really cares if they play or not. Their absense is likely to not even be noticed.
* Weapon specific skill sets. Ok so I am all out here. What other comparable game allows you to setup skill sets per weapon set.
* Graphics. Awesome art style. Nothing really new here but I thought I would give you a free trolling point. It is a European Renaissance art style. I saw in another topic you said it was comparable to Aion... Really? How?
Anyways what other MMO is offering such a rich graphics experience in stereoscpic 3d. The landscapes are huge and immersive and the draw distance is also impressive. I will just wait for your FPS troll as you have probably haven't wasted anough of peoples time with that one yet.
* Impressive immersive combat. So TERA like GW2 is taking a new path for combat. Why aren't you trolling there? We all know why but it amuses me to bring this point up. Conan had a sort of visceral combat but ended up feeling pretty clumsy at the end of the day and was only for melee classes. But hey I am sure that the idea active defence and dodging is probably too immersive for you. I mean you wouldn't want to raise your pulse or anything when you are almost dead dodging like mad to get out of the way to deliver that killer blow before you bleed out and go into downed mode. Bahhh excitement and seat edge action has no place in MMO's right. It should all be number crunching and raids by the numbers, rinse and repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over etc...
* Fixed timescale levelling. No grind dreadmill on ever spiralling increased time to level. That is a subscription mechanic albeit thinly disguised in content (Usually hunting quests that have you repeatedly running to and from the same location killing a different beast each time) designed purely to extend your path to max level timemise as possible to maximise your minimum subscription period.
* Gear mechanics. GW2 will be as with GW a skill based game. Max gear is obtainable to even the worst players. Again it will be the skill and awareness of the player that dictates victory or defeat and not the depth of their vault or willingness to endlessly grind out quests, dungeons and instances to eventually get the best gear. This differs from almost all other MMO's.
* Once you buy the game it has to be of sufficient quality to keep you playing until they can release the next paid installment expansion. Thats the business model. This time with the personal stories they have so nailed it because people will become attached to their characters on a personal level rather based on their utility in a given situation. High replayability value in regards to people creating multiple characters and hundreds of variations on personal story paths. Puts the RPG back into MMORPG. ToR is doing this too but no-one else to this degree.
* WvWvW so nothing really new here. Has elements of DAoC and Conan. I am sure that is has more than a passing resemblence to a few others. What GW2 has completely in its favour is its pedigree. GW pvp was rated very highly amongst the pvp community. Not everyones cup of tea but all the same I don't think anyone could say that the pvp in GW was bad. Just remember that the guys heading up Arenanet were part of the Warcraft games including WoW, Starcraft, Diablo 1 & 2 and Battlenet. Even most hard bitten critics would have to concede that this counts in GW2's favor. Not groundbreaking but it will be a much revamped and re-invented pvp experience given the new combat mechanics.
* Variety of difficulty events and dungeons. As with the first GW their was many quests, dungeons, missions and other activities of varying difficulty. The advent of Nightfall saw the introduction of the "Master" quests. I am quite certain their will be "Master" events. Believing the game will be a cakewalk from start to finish is naive to say the least. It also again shows all how little you know about the original game.
* Greifing. I have noted your little spiel on greifing in other threads also. The creators of GW2 play many different online games. Do you Robert Dinh as an individual think to pit your individual knowledge against 150 dedicated professionals that are considered experts in their field. No they have already thought of annoying greifers like yourself. Rest assured the most you could expect out of greifing is the cost of respawning at the nearest waypoint and little or no rewards. I am quite certain that Arenanet has your measure chief and found you to be wanting. Please feel free to try greifing in game and let us know how that works out huh.
* GW2 is not a WoW killer no matter how much anyone wants it to be. WoW will collapse under its own weight. People may just get sick of paying for essentially a nothing service and then again for content on an outdated engine. Just sayin..
* Dynamic scaling. Well this is something that truly never has been done before. I am looking forward to epic battles where our entire guild goes to an area and scales up the encounter to epic battle proportions. I wanna see how far up we can scale it. I would lol @ 100+ wave of bandits attacking a farm.
* Real world interaction. I am refering to the iPhone, Andriod and webapps that will allow you to interact with the game from wherever you are. Not really new but the features it offers are impressiive. More to come on this one though so watch this space.
I am not expecting a well thought out and intelligent reply from yourself. you have failed to directly address any number of points objectively (that is considering each arguements and elaborating on your opinion with sound reasoning) on any occassion in these forums.
Given the methods in employment in your posting history I am not hopeful of a detailed reply. Still it may be a rainyt day after all.
There's only been a few replies from ppl who don't mind wearing the label of hardcore PvE'er for the purposes of this thread. And some interesting replies but nothing conclusive. It seems to me, in general, GW2 will cater less to this sort of playstyle preference. I don't think the PvP needs to be questioned based on GW or the lack of information from GW2 to date.
Wondering if RobertDinh, if you'd be charitable enough to add your input, what sort of features are missing from GW2 for PvE that you would have personally preferred to make it interesting? Eg lack of perceived challenge?
Obviously the devs need to release a lot more information on End-game eg Continent of Orr, Dungeons eg 5-person size, Collectable rewards that sort of cover this PvE experience to some effect but it seems thin on the ground especially considering the plateaux levelling curve??
There's only been a few replies from ppl who don't mind wearing the label of hardcore PvE'er for the purposes of this thread. And some interesting replies but nothing conclusive. It seems to me, in general, GW2 will cater less to this sort of playstyle preference. I don't think the PvP needs to be questioned based on GW or the lack of information from GW2 to date.
Wondering if RobertDinh, if you'd be charitable enough to add your input, what sort of features are missing from GW2 for PvE that you would have personally preferred to make it interesting? Eg lack of perceived challenge?
Obviously the devs need to release a lot more information on End-game eg Continent of Orr, Dungeons eg 5-person size, Collectable rewards that sort of cover this PvE experience to some effect but it seems thin on the ground especially considering the plateaux levelling curve??
I would fit the bill of hardcore pve player.
I am just not an elitist or egoist.
Good to hear, I find that top sportsmen, when they play at a lower level, they in most cases take a back-seat and try to help the game, not themselves. It's the players that have yet to prove themselves that make a stir or fuss and demand lower level players on their team play how they dictate, which is the wrong communication.
But regarding the OP, anyone who considers themselves HC PvE'er it would be interesting to hear their view on GW2. Roleplayers too, is another area, I am wondering how ArenaNet are catering, maybe their lore is expansive enough, which is at least a good start apart from including RP features such as walking etc...
I'm impressed that ArenaNet cover most bases, and interested in those that seem weakest, doubly so!
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
It should also be noted that all of the scouts in Guild Wars 2 and the tasks associated with helping them are not regarded as events. Events happen near them but the tasks that the farmers themselves have for you are not events.
I guess if you included them as kinda events it would boost that number by quite a lot I would imagine.
Don't forget the easter eggs. If GW2 bears even a remote passing to the original it is going to be choc a block full of pop culture and easter eggs.
And of course there is the personal story. I can imagine that it also would be a huge amount of content considering the branching that also happens in the personal story.
It's a good line of enquiry to consider the numbers roughly involved in DE eg 1600 with average 3 chains per DE. Colin Johanson says in one of the interviews that because DEs cycle say for about 20mins or something then those little tasks that keep players additionally busy are an important cover for those situations when the DE may be escalated away from the player arriving in an area where it would normally trigger for example.
So I agree, due to the design of DE, there appears MUCH MORE content and more variation and less "Filler Content" due to the Flat Level Curve, hence the DE by necessity needs to be fairly dense.
The only question I have until actually seeing a lot more of what types of DE ArenaNet have covered, is how much repeatability they will get and if the design of the maps and DE pathing will keep all the DEs efficiently utilised compared to eg WAR where the PQs often became barren and empty.
The variation and quantity of DEs looks to give a hardcore PvE a run for their money for a short period of time at least, but will they be challenging enough?? Perhaps for some they will be fine and others the challenge may need to be addressed adequately from other content such as Dungeons, Achievements... or another MMO?
IMO true hardcore gamers like to give every game a fair chance. So yes, GW2 will make the HxC mmorpg crowd interested in it. However, There's no telling, yet, if they'll want to stay in the game or not.
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
It should also be noted that all of the scouts in Guild Wars 2 and the tasks associated with helping them are not regarded as events. Events happen near them but the tasks that the farmers themselves have for you are not events.
I guess if you included them as kinda events it would boost that number by quite a lot I would imagine.
Don't forget the easter eggs. If GW2 bears even a remote passing to the original it is going to be choc a block full of pop culture and easter eggs.
And of course there is the personal story. I can imagine that it also would be a huge amount of content considering the branching that also happens in the personal story.
I agree-I think the content that will be in GW 2 will keep us all happy for a long time to come.
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
Your figures are off. 6million people didn't buy gw1, it was 6 million box copies total across all campaigns. Obviously a lot of people bought every release in the series.
You also forget the fact that sub mmos also have box sales + subscriptions.
Anyway anet has used this payment model before, and their first game had very little content relative to an mmorpg. This one will have more content, but they still won't be able to keep up with how quickly hardcore players eat through content. Nor does their game have intuitive end game pve. 5man dungeons won't cut it.
Also the only battleground where you can summon giant monsters is alterac valley, and the summoning wasn't even originally implemented. Are you trying to say gw1 takes credit for the whole concept of summoning monsters? Sorry mmorpgs have been doing it since long before anet was even established.
The underlined comment suggests that you haven't played GvG in GW. GW equalent for "summoning monsters" in the middle is the flag stand. It is about holding the middleground to get an advantage. You should know this. It might as well be a cooking pot and when it boils the defending team gets yummy soup. How can you be from a top guild if you haven't played GvG?
Clearly you can't even follow your own conversation. The point is that alterac valley has nothing to do with GW1. You are just searching for concepts that you try to attribute to gw1. GW1 wasn't original at all, it was like diablo fused with some concepts you might find in some mmos.
GW1 was not innovative for pvp, it was not innovative for PvE. The game had a fraction of the content that an mmorpg has. As I said before there are loyalists who think gw1 was epic and groundbreaking because their experience is so limited with other games, but those of us that have played tons of games, from fps,rts, morpg to mmorpg, the game doesn't even rank up there.
Agree or disagree it doesn't matter to me, but the better player always has a better grasp on the reality of things.
The point of my next to last post was to question your experience of high-end GvG in Guild Wars. You fell for that trap. You didn't even respond properly to why you fell for that trap. Clearly someone who knows how GvG works wouldn't make a question like that (marked in red). I've provided proof that I've been involved in high-end GvG tournaments. You have not. In fact, you've dodged every question out there which makes me think you're trying some form of trolling.
I've played plenty of games, seen plenty of games being played and I have friends who have played many games that know me and can tell me what games I will like and what I wont like with great reliability. You'll only have my word for it just like I have your word that you've played many games. It is not very smart to make an assumption that you've played more games than any of the GW fans here because you just cannot know. Your argument is void.
Can you be absolutely certain they didn't take inspiration from GW's PvP? Again, it is well known that Blizzard copies features from other games. I'm only pointing out the vast similarities and the fact that GW did it first. No one knows how it really went.
GW was innovative in regards to PvP because it was one of the first in the genre to specifically design the game with PvP in mind. It is one of the most balanced systems in the genre. It had design choises that made the combat more fast-paced - faster than in other MMORPGs. And they had reduced amount of dice rolls in it. It did not circle around gear-grinding and level - one of first in the genre as well. And they had guild ladder and tournaments.
One with some experience from other games would say that GW is more or less "like Magic the Gathering with real-time, team-based combat". I find it more informative than "Diablo - with some things attached to it".
The comment (marked in light green) is just you being patronizing. -Feel superior now, huh? In addition Your very last comment just doesn't inspire respect or authority. How can we possibly agree with you with the image you're giving? It gives me even more suspicion that you are only here to fish for heated responses - otherwise known as trolling. I advice you to state your case differently next time.
I think you really aren't understanding the conversation at all. I didn't fall into any trap, i directly stated that wow did not take alterac valley from gw1. Which is true. Again you are seeing what you want to see, not what is actually said. The question was paraphrasing from what you said. You were insinuating that wow took summoning monsters from gw1, I directly said that was not the case. Just like if you said elephants could fly, and I said elephants can not fly. And then you said "lol you don't know anything about elephants because you even addressed the question of whether they could fly".
Originally posted by arenasb
Originally posted by Observe001
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Observe001
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
I love it when people like you think you are entitled to people going out of their way just to convince you. I personally don't care about you whatsoever, you either have an understanding for games or you don't, it doesn't matter to me either way.
Please do not dodge my request. Please show me detailed proof of your extensive experience in guild wars high end pvp.
He won't because he hasn't. He was already debunked at GW2Guru and now came here for his claim. He claimed to be a high end pvper in WoW as well.
I wasn't debunked at all lol. As I said before people automatically feel like they are entitled to know everything about me. If they can't understand advanced concepts in pve and pvp, my credentials aren't going to magically make that right. If my credentials did make that right, their logic would be flawed, because you should be accepting reality based on critical thinking, not because someone has a large resume.
The person that demanded I answer his gw1 quiz, was a mod named Lurker on the gw2g forum. If you want I can forward you pm conversations him and I have had and why he was extremely bitter towards me. He thought he was deep into the starcraft:bw and sc2 scene, and I basically destroyed his entire understanding of the games and he was pretty upset to get proven wrong so badly. One of our big discussions was about a player named whitera, who was good in beta because he played a lot, but is a weak player compared to top level players. Lurker was mindlessly under the belief that whitera would dominate in live. I already knew this was not possible because whitera's play is extremely 1dimensional and his macro is quite weak. Live came out and whitera could not keep up with the top players at lan tournaments, he couldn't even make it past group stages at IEM. Meanwhile I told Lurker I would be coaching a player to the top, he was obviously skeptical. I can say that my player broke top 50 in the world last week.
As far as being a high end wow pvper, i was beyond high end, I was the cream of the crop. On the gw2g forum a lot of gw1 players would try to claim they were top end arena players, but they would have no concept of compositions or top teams on the scene or how LANs were turning out.
If anything a lot of you are projecting, you know you aren't strong players, so you assume good players are something only found in legends. It is amplified by the bias you have against me because I don't just mindlessly accept gw2 as the greatest game ever created that will save the world.
Originally posted by Observe001
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by Observe001
Dinh you claimed that you played high end pvp in guild wars but you'd never go into detail about it. Give me some evidence that you played high pvp, talk about your matches in detail along with the combat system. Better yet give me some evidence that you'd played guild wars. Show me a screenshot of your character in a high level area saying "Hi this is RobertDinh", along with your guild's ranking and personal ranking if you have played two of guild war's high end pvp. A video would be nice if you have any. I want to see some solid evidence to know if you have any credibility. Do not try to dodge it, do not try to make excuses. Show me your credentials.
I love it when people like you think you are entitled to people going out of their way just to convince you. I personally don't care about you whatsoever, you either have an understanding for games or you don't, it doesn't matter to me either way.
Please do not dodge my request. Please show me detailed proof of your extensive experience in guild wars high end pvp.
Sorry buddy, you aren't really entitled to anything.
Comments
For pvp part yes, for pve i really doubt that. Lots of hardcore pvp players hope that gw2 wil be really skill based.
Anyone who doesn't think that GW1 PvP isn't about skill hasn't played the game. I'll admit that there has always been the gimmick build over the years that people bad at PvP tend to flock to in order to win. Other times, guild will tailor their team setup to combat certain tactics/builds used by a Guild they know they're going up against in a tournament and this led to the term "Build Wars." But the fact remains that good players on a balanced team can not just beat, but dominate those teams even when at a severe disvantage in build. Explain to me how can they do that if pvp takes no skill?
As for PvE, most of it is easily doable in order to let everyone get through the main storyline without undue effort. However, there are elite areas such as 12 man The Deep, Urgoz. Then there are 8 man DoA, UW, FoW, and dungeons. Aside from gimmicky speed clear groups, these require a more "hardcore" team setup, especially DoA, The Deep, UW, certain dungeons and Urgoz. From what it sounds like, dungeons in GW2 are going to mirror or be greater than the difficultly of these elite areas in GW1. Although the rewards are about money/skins rather than better gear (Which imo makes for a better game because it's soooooo less grind based).
There will be hardcore gamers who like Guild Wars 2 and some that don't. That's all there is to be said about that.
Lots of Love,
Killhurt
We are all waiting Robert Dinh. Don't disappear on us now with your "objective" opinion. You've contributed so much to this community... so much so that no one takes you seriously and can see right through your biased opinion on GW2.
To stick to the OP, I believe it will appeal to 75%+ of MMORPG gamers in general, but not to the hardcore MMORPG PvE crowd. They will never be pleased with anything due to their elitist gamer egos (see the definition of a troll). They all have the mentality that since they have been playing MMO's for 12+ years that they know what would make the best MMO. Unfortunately, if this was the case, we would all be running around grinding endlessly in every MMO in the future.
In all honesty... who cares if it appeals to the hardcore MMORPG gamers. In fact, I hope the hardcore ppl hate it. The less obnoxious elitists, the better. Without naming any names, I'm sure you can read through this thread and figure out who the "elitists" are. Do you really want to be playing and interacting with some of those people?
Play a game because YOU are interested in it... not because others are. You'll be much happier and much more entertained.
Maybe he got reported and banned again for a few days. Besides, looking at his former replies upon your questions until now he didn't provide any facts to back up his claims of playing high PvP, so I doubt he will start doing so in follow up replies. But who knows.
Regarding competitive PvP, I know for a fact that a number of the most competitive, topranking PvP guilds from AoC will reform in GW2, and they're pretty serious about it, planning for it this far before launch.
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 love it when people like you think you are entitled to people going out of their way just to convince you. I personally don't care about you whatsoever, you either have an understanding for games or you don't, it doesn't matter to me either way.
People like you crack me up, I am sorry I can't lurk the forums 24-7, and just cause i am not here for a day or two doesn't mean i've been banned. Don't you ever get bored of making all these baseless claims and constantly being incorrect?
Clearly you can't even follow your own conversation. The point is that alterac valley has nothing to do with GW1. You are just searching for concepts that you try to attribute to gw1. GW1 wasn't original at all, it was like diablo fused with some concepts you might find in some mmos.
GW1 was not innovative for pvp, it was not innovative for PvE. The game had a fraction of the content that an mmorpg has. As I said before there are loyalists who think gw1 was epic and groundbreaking because their experience is so limited with other games, but those of us that have played tons of games, from fps,rts, morpg to mmorpg, the game doesn't even rank up there.
Agree or disagree it doesn't matter to me, but the better player always has a better grasp on the reality of things.
I'm glad that we provide entertainment for eachother, I must admit that I'm often amused and entertained by your posts as well. As you can see from the latest posts in this thread, you've been missed
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."
Hey despite our disagreements at least you are showing a more light-hearted side of yourself right now.
i wont.. it look like a really nice game, but its not for me. I dont like to rush to an end game wich GW is mainly about
RobetDinh, forgetting all the who copied what baloney I have to disagree with your other points. The picking of skills out of many hundreds and making team builds was novel, interesting, and resulted in matches that required skill (rather than 100's of hours gearing up). Your comments about hardcore PvP guilds are questionable when you mention games like EQ & SB.
I too prefer open world stuff and I guess that's likely the reason that GW1 was not as popular as it might have been (but it was likely more popular than you give it credit for). Anyway if you want to be taken seriously as a 'hardcore PvP pundit' you don't want to be mentioning SB or( to a lesser extent) EQI (lowish level - level locked EQII pvp was surprisingly fun at times). Oh and you should be mentioning AC1 (Darktide) & DAoC (though of course the latter is RvR). To dismiss GW1 in the way you have demonstrates either a lack of experience (with it and other games) or a lack of understanding how it all worked and the complexities involved (or maybe a deliberate downplaying of that). So what do you consider decent games for 'hardcore' pvp guilds?
He won't because he hasn't. He was already debunked at GW2Guru and now came here for his claim. He claimed to be a high end pvper in WoW as well.
The point of my next to last post was to question your experience of high-end GvG in Guild Wars. You fell for that trap. You didn't even respond properly to why you fell for that trap. Clearly someone who knows how GvG works wouldn't make a question like that (marked in red). I've provided proof that I've been involved in high-end GvG tournaments. You have not. In fact, you've dodged every question out there which makes me think you're trying some form of trolling.
I've played plenty of games, seen plenty of games being played and I have friends who have played many games that know me and can tell me what games I will like and what I wont like with great reliability. You'll only have my word for it just like I have your word that you've played many games. It is not very smart to make an assumption that you've played more games than any of the GW fans here because you just cannot know. Your argument is void.
Can you be absolutely certain they didn't take inspiration from GW's PvP? Again, it is well known that Blizzard copies features from other games. I'm only pointing out the vast similarities and the fact that GW did it first. No one knows how it really went.
GW was innovative in regards to PvP because it was one of the first in the genre to specifically design the game with PvP in mind. It is one of the most balanced systems in the genre. It had design choises that made the combat more fast-paced - faster than in other MMORPGs. And they had reduced amount of dice rolls in it. It did not circle around gear-grinding and level - one of first in the genre as well. And they had guild ladder and tournaments.
One with some experience from other games would say that GW is more or less "like Magic the Gathering with real-time, team-based combat". I find it more informative than "Diablo - with some things attached to it".
The comment (marked in light green) is just you being patronizing. -Feel superior now, huh? In addition Your very last comment just doesn't inspire respect or authority. How can we possibly agree with you with the image you're giving? It gives me even more suspicion that you are only here to fish for heated responses - otherwise known as trolling. I advice you to state your case differently next time.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
There's only been a few replies from ppl who don't mind wearing the label of hardcore PvE'er for the purposes of this thread. And some interesting replies but nothing conclusive. It seems to me, in general, GW2 will cater less to this sort of playstyle preference. I don't think the PvP needs to be questioned based on GW or the lack of information from GW2 to date.
Wondering if RobertDinh, if you'd be charitable enough to add your input, what sort of features are missing from GW2 for PvE that you would have personally preferred to make it interesting? Eg lack of perceived challenge?
Obviously the devs need to release a lot more information on End-game eg Continent of Orr, Dungeons eg 5-person size, Collectable rewards that sort of cover this PvE experience to some effect but it seems thin on the ground especially considering the plateaux levelling curve??
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I am not sure what you are trying to say in relation WoW. Why would Arenanet want to make WoW. It goes against the manifesto and every design choice they have made thus far. Besides the founders were part of the team that made WoW. They learnt from any mistakes that were made there. They left because of a divergence of design and customer service philosophies. Arenanet is structured to look after players / customers first rather than shareholders.
To what lesser extent is GW2 being designed to WoW. It is a new game and by default will have less content that WoW (Which has Burning Crusade, Witch King and soon Cataclysm (Each expansion costing the standard retail price not to mention the ongoing subscription fee). After all the GW2 business model is on box sales ONLY so they will usually release an expansion every 6-12 months.
You continually berate GW2 for what I can see are trivial or made up reasons. You don't think its a break from the mold ok fair enough. Lets look at some of the features or reasons that you have disputed in the past or are relevant.
* You don't think 5 man raid will be epic enough. Thats is you opinion and not the beleif held by the majority I think. 5 man is a break from the mold. Not much to be said here you are entitled to your opinion of course but the size of the party doesn't decide whether something is "hardcore" or not.
* You think that quests and events are the same. Ok so in every other MMO the quests / events run their course if you aren't even online right? WRONG! I can't think of one can you? This in itself IS groundbreaking.
* You think that GW2 caters only to casual gamers. Seriously this is probably the most retarded thing you have ever said. Go do UW in Hard Mode and tell me how easy it wasn't. I seriously doubt you could do it to be honest even in normal (easy) mode. I guess you must have had an anuerysm when you forgot about the $100,000 Arenanet put up as prize money every 6 months for GvG tournaments.
100 grand for casual gamers, yeah good on ya Robert. Think before you speak. I know the level of competition 1st hand at this level. Our guild in the early days of GW went up against GvG against War Machine in auto rank matches. We lasted only 17 min in one particular match and we were ranked 96 on the USA servers. Those guys were machines I tell you. Pity our guild fell apart not long after that.
To think that GW2 would be anything but a step up from the high quality GW pvp experience is in my informed opinion the statement of someone that doesn't have the required GW experience to make that call. Its a real pity that we don't have any specific info on the pvp aspect of GW2 to go into this further. PvP in GW2 will be something of a sleeping giant i feel.
It will cater to the hardcore player. It may not cater to a small demographic of hardcore egomaniac elitists but I don't think anyone really cares if they play or not. Their absense is likely to not even be noticed.
* Weapon specific skill sets. Ok so I am all out here. What other comparable game allows you to setup skill sets per weapon set.
* Graphics. Awesome art style. Nothing really new here but I thought I would give you a free trolling point. It is a European Renaissance art style. I saw in another topic you said it was comparable to Aion... Really? How?
Anyways what other MMO is offering such a rich graphics experience in stereoscpic 3d. The landscapes are huge and immersive and the draw distance is also impressive. I will just wait for your FPS troll as you have probably haven't wasted anough of peoples time with that one yet.
* Impressive immersive combat. So TERA like GW2 is taking a new path for combat. Why aren't you trolling there? We all know why but it amuses me to bring this point up. Conan had a sort of visceral combat but ended up feeling pretty clumsy at the end of the day and was only for melee classes. But hey I am sure that the idea active defence and dodging is probably too immersive for you. I mean you wouldn't want to raise your pulse or anything when you are almost dead dodging like mad to get out of the way to deliver that killer blow before you bleed out and go into downed mode. Bahhh excitement and seat edge action has no place in MMO's right. It should all be number crunching and raids by the numbers, rinse and repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over etc...
* Fixed timescale levelling. No grind dreadmill on ever spiralling increased time to level. That is a subscription mechanic albeit thinly disguised in content (Usually hunting quests that have you repeatedly running to and from the same location killing a different beast each time) designed purely to extend your path to max level timemise as possible to maximise your minimum subscription period.
* Gear mechanics. GW2 will be as with GW a skill based game. Max gear is obtainable to even the worst players. Again it will be the skill and awareness of the player that dictates victory or defeat and not the depth of their vault or willingness to endlessly grind out quests, dungeons and instances to eventually get the best gear. This differs from almost all other MMO's.
* Once you buy the game it has to be of sufficient quality to keep you playing until they can release the next paid installment expansion. Thats the business model. This time with the personal stories they have so nailed it because people will become attached to their characters on a personal level rather based on their utility in a given situation. High replayability value in regards to people creating multiple characters and hundreds of variations on personal story paths. Puts the RPG back into MMORPG. ToR is doing this too but no-one else to this degree.
* WvWvW so nothing really new here. Has elements of DAoC and Conan. I am sure that is has more than a passing resemblence to a few others. What GW2 has completely in its favour is its pedigree. GW pvp was rated very highly amongst the pvp community. Not everyones cup of tea but all the same I don't think anyone could say that the pvp in GW was bad. Just remember that the guys heading up Arenanet were part of the Warcraft games including WoW, Starcraft, Diablo 1 & 2 and Battlenet. Even most hard bitten critics would have to concede that this counts in GW2's favor. Not groundbreaking but it will be a much revamped and re-invented pvp experience given the new combat mechanics.
* Variety of difficulty events and dungeons. As with the first GW their was many quests, dungeons, missions and other activities of varying difficulty. The advent of Nightfall saw the introduction of the "Master" quests. I am quite certain their will be "Master" events. Believing the game will be a cakewalk from start to finish is naive to say the least. It also again shows all how little you know about the original game.
* Greifing. I have noted your little spiel on greifing in other threads also. The creators of GW2 play many different online games. Do you Robert Dinh as an individual think to pit your individual knowledge against 150 dedicated professionals that are considered experts in their field. No they have already thought of annoying greifers like yourself. Rest assured the most you could expect out of greifing is the cost of respawning at the nearest waypoint and little or no rewards. I am quite certain that Arenanet has your measure chief and found you to be wanting. Please feel free to try greifing in game and let us know how that works out huh.
* GW2 is not a WoW killer no matter how much anyone wants it to be. WoW will collapse under its own weight. People may just get sick of paying for essentially a nothing service and then again for content on an outdated engine. Just sayin..
* Dynamic scaling. Well this is something that truly never has been done before. I am looking forward to epic battles where our entire guild goes to an area and scales up the encounter to epic battle proportions. I wanna see how far up we can scale it. I would lol @ 100+ wave of bandits attacking a farm.
* Real world interaction. I am refering to the iPhone, Andriod and webapps that will allow you to interact with the game from wherever you are. Not really new but the features it offers are impressiive. More to come on this one though so watch this space.
I am not expecting a well thought out and intelligent reply from yourself. you have failed to directly address any number of points objectively (that is considering each arguements and elaborating on your opinion with sound reasoning) on any occassion in these forums.
Given the methods in employment in your posting history I am not hopeful of a detailed reply. Still it may be a rainyt day after all.
Hey - 1001 posts!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I would fit the bill of hardcore pve player.
I am just not an elitist or egoist.
Good to hear, I find that top sportsmen, when they play at a lower level, they in most cases take a back-seat and try to help the game, not themselves. It's the players that have yet to prove themselves that make a stir or fuss and demand lower level players on their team play how they dictate, which is the wrong communication.
But regarding the OP, anyone who considers themselves HC PvE'er it would be interesting to hear their view on GW2. Roleplayers too, is another area, I am wondering how ArenaNet are catering, maybe their lore is expansive enough, which is at least a good start apart from including RP features such as walking etc...
I'm impressed that ArenaNet cover most bases, and interested in those that seem weakest, doubly so!
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I apologize for what im about to do, taking this a bit off topic. But im kinda tired of seeing this behind people's reasoning for why they believe that GW2 is not going to have enough content to keep people busy. This statement which im quoting froim this thread struck a nerve with me:
"I don't really agree that it is a break from the mold though, to me it is doing exactly what wow has done, but to a lesser extent because it isn't as well funded and doesn't use the same payment model."
Now when i read a statement like this i read the basic message as: GW2 isnt profitable enough to have similar content/quality as a sub based mmo due to lack of revenue. Now granted they referenced WoW which has enough content that most people never bother with most of it, instead skipping to the end game leaving most of there content underutilized and wasted in many cases(a shame really). But i still see the point as being one of people simplifying there reasoning down to Profit=Content. Fair enough. I ran some numbers and using some very basic math where i only took into account the most likley player base for GW2(GW1 players) and assuming that they will be releasing an expansion a year later(though it could happen at 6 months given there precedent with GW1 expansions). So if only former GW1 players buy GW2 and they only release the original game for the first year, then arenanet will be looking at $350,000,000 in game sales alone(not counting CE, or CS options or merchandise). That alone makes this game just as profitable as a sub based game with 1.5 million subs(rounding down). How many content filled mmo's have breached 1.5 million subs and kept them for a solid year? And again this is only counting former GW1 players. There are many people who either didnt like or never played GW1 who have every intention of picking up GW2 so clearly my $350 million dollar figure is low balling it significantly.
Hell if they only reinvest a third of that $350 million, your trying to tell us they couldnt create tons of content out of $100+million? For most mmo's(sub or otherwise) that is more than the cost of there entire game development. Seems to me, as long as they dont screw this up between now and launch, money shouldnt be a concern for them, and by all accounts there doing great so far.
Also on the content for pve front, id like to repost something i put down elsewhere on the forum:
For those of you concerned about a lack of content, i think i can answer your concerns. Now the standard quest system is clearly out so it isnt so easy to make direct comparisons based on that. However i have gone through the list of Warhammers PQ's and they have 500 Public Quests in game as of this point (being year 2 of its existence). Now if you account for the fact that half of these PQ's are for each faction, a charachter in WAR has the possibility of experiencing 250 (aprox. estimate) possible PQ's. That being said im aware that the vast majority of players sadly stuck to quests and pvp rather than pq's so not alot of players actually played near that many public quests, but its merely for content comparison sake that i offer the reference.
On top of that there are clear differences between PQ's and Dynamic Events in terms of replayability and possible outcomes. If we asume that Dynamic Events average out to 3 stages or "chains" similar to WAR's PQ's (we have just as much reason to assume it could be more as we do less) then with a simple pass/fail variable per stage/chain, we are looking at a possible 4 outcomes per Dynamic Event which leads to each DE having the replayability of 4 PQ's.
Arenanet has mentioned that they are looking at having 1600 DE's in game as of now/launch. Using the above example of conversion in terms of content/replayability, that would be the equivalent of 6,400 Public Quests(assuming of course your getting a different outcome every time you attempt a Dynamic Event).
Now again compare the fact that your looking at 1600 Dynamic Events(accessible to all players) at launch for GW2, vs. 250 Public Quests(playable per faction) in WAR during the second year of its lifespan. I know this is all just math and theory, but it does seem to indicate to me that lack of content is the least of my concerns.
I was addressing only 1 aspect of Pve in the above, we still have no idea how much content we will have in terms of player storyline or dungeons, but if the above is any indication, i again see no reason to believe that this game will not have enough in it for the hardcore PVE player.
It should also be noted that all of the scouts in Guild Wars 2 and the tasks associated with helping them are not regarded as events. Events happen near them but the tasks that the farmers themselves have for you are not events.
I guess if you included them as kinda events it would boost that number by quite a lot I would imagine.
Don't forget the easter eggs. If GW2 bears even a remote passing to the original it is going to be choc a block full of pop culture and easter eggs.
And of course there is the personal story. I can imagine that it also would be a huge amount of content considering the branching that also happens in the personal story.
It's a good line of enquiry to consider the numbers roughly involved in DE eg 1600 with average 3 chains per DE. Colin Johanson says in one of the interviews that because DEs cycle say for about 20mins or something then those little tasks that keep players additionally busy are an important cover for those situations when the DE may be escalated away from the player arriving in an area where it would normally trigger for example.
So I agree, due to the design of DE, there appears MUCH MORE content and more variation and less "Filler Content" due to the Flat Level Curve, hence the DE by necessity needs to be fairly dense.
The only question I have until actually seeing a lot more of what types of DE ArenaNet have covered, is how much repeatability they will get and if the design of the maps and DE pathing will keep all the DEs efficiently utilised compared to eg WAR where the PQs often became barren and empty.
The variation and quantity of DEs looks to give a hardcore PvE a run for their money for a short period of time at least, but will they be challenging enough?? Perhaps for some they will be fine and others the challenge may need to be addressed adequately from other content such as Dungeons, Achievements... or another MMO?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
IMO true hardcore gamers like to give every game a fair chance. So yes, GW2 will make the HxC mmorpg crowd interested in it. However, There's no telling, yet, if they'll want to stay in the game or not.
I agree-I think the content that will be in GW 2 will keep us all happy for a long time to come.
Your figures are off. 6million people didn't buy gw1, it was 6 million box copies total across all campaigns. Obviously a lot of people bought every release in the series.
You also forget the fact that sub mmos also have box sales + subscriptions.
Anyway anet has used this payment model before, and their first game had very little content relative to an mmorpg. This one will have more content, but they still won't be able to keep up with how quickly hardcore players eat through content. Nor does their game have intuitive end game pve. 5man dungeons won't cut it.
I think you really aren't understanding the conversation at all. I didn't fall into any trap, i directly stated that wow did not take alterac valley from gw1. Which is true. Again you are seeing what you want to see, not what is actually said. The question was paraphrasing from what you said. You were insinuating that wow took summoning monsters from gw1, I directly said that was not the case. Just like if you said elephants could fly, and I said elephants can not fly. And then you said "lol you don't know anything about elephants because you even addressed the question of whether they could fly".
I wasn't debunked at all lol. As I said before people automatically feel like they are entitled to know everything about me. If they can't understand advanced concepts in pve and pvp, my credentials aren't going to magically make that right. If my credentials did make that right, their logic would be flawed, because you should be accepting reality based on critical thinking, not because someone has a large resume.
The person that demanded I answer his gw1 quiz, was a mod named Lurker on the gw2g forum. If you want I can forward you pm conversations him and I have had and why he was extremely bitter towards me. He thought he was deep into the starcraft:bw and sc2 scene, and I basically destroyed his entire understanding of the games and he was pretty upset to get proven wrong so badly. One of our big discussions was about a player named whitera, who was good in beta because he played a lot, but is a weak player compared to top level players. Lurker was mindlessly under the belief that whitera would dominate in live. I already knew this was not possible because whitera's play is extremely 1dimensional and his macro is quite weak. Live came out and whitera could not keep up with the top players at lan tournaments, he couldn't even make it past group stages at IEM. Meanwhile I told Lurker I would be coaching a player to the top, he was obviously skeptical. I can say that my player broke top 50 in the world last week.
As far as being a high end wow pvper, i was beyond high end, I was the cream of the crop. On the gw2g forum a lot of gw1 players would try to claim they were top end arena players, but they would have no concept of compositions or top teams on the scene or how LANs were turning out.
If anything a lot of you are projecting, you know you aren't strong players, so you assume good players are something only found in legends. It is amplified by the bias you have against me because I don't just mindlessly accept gw2 as the greatest game ever created that will save the world.
Sorry buddy, you aren't really entitled to anything.