Wow that's weird. All the things the OP cites as "dislikes" are "likes" for me.
Guess it takes all kinds to make the gaming world go 'round.
Same here.
I've gotten to the point where I don't bother arguing with people about aspects of GW2. I like everything in the game, I know for sure it's what I like, I'm not going to be let down. Then they argue and say it happened to all these other games and everything the developers say is just to make hype. All I can say is sorry your expectations for those games were so high, but I like what I've seen from the game, there's nothing that will disappoint me.
It really all comes down to personal preference. I know people hate seeing this but it makes sense:
You don't like it? Then it's not the game for you, find something else that'll suit your interests.
Saying the mists is an instance is like saying the abyss in aion is in instance. You may have to port to get there, but it is a open zone like every other open zone in every other MMO. It is not a private instance.
Definition: A segment of gameplay in MMORPGs in which players form a group together and enter a special area in the game world, usually through some type of portal. They are then essentially cut off from the rest of the gamers in that only people who are in the group when the group passes through the portal will be able to enter the dungeon with them. Other groups may enter the dungeon, but will not encounter the first group, hence they are in a different INSTANCE of the same dungeon.
Seeing as this doesn't happen in WvWvW, I guess it's not an instance. Thanks for your concern though.
Still an instance. This lame definition (that I knew you would go search for) stupidly ties "grouping" to an instance, as if you couldn't enter an instance solo.
Keep trying, but you'll still be wrong.
You can enter it solo, and still see someone else who has also entered it solo. There is no definition of instance that applies to that scenario.
I'm happy for you, and I'ma let you finish, but you simply don't get to make your own definitions for words. You are not the dictionary, and if you repeat an untruth long enough, it won't become true. I'm going to go ahead and report you for trolling, though, because this has gone on long enough.
It's still an instance.
And not a single f*ck was given
If you can see someone other than your group, it isn't an instance
If you can only see your group, it is an instance
Why is this dragged out so long, who cares if WvWvW is instanced or whatever, its just how you label the terminology.
If it is fun, not a single f*ck will be given whether it is instanced or not.
stop trolling
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Example: For instance, yesterday i ate a hamburger.
Explanation: The speaker creates a conversational instance of his or her's yesterday hamburger-eating experience. The blueprint for this experience was in his or her memory.
Conclusion: Everything is a frikkin instance of something.
Suggestion: Start using words you can comprehend.
Examples: Dungeon is a good word. Battleground is a good word.
I think the argument about whether something is or isn't an instance might be coming from the somewhat unique situation that GW2 is providing here.
One aspect of instancing is the idea that each person, group, or raid who enters has their own version. They are separated from others. It's implied by the name, each has their own instance of the content. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds in GW2 are areas where everybody from the same server sees everybody. If what you were entering was something like a DAOC PVP area or a WoW Wintergrasp, then there would be no confusion. It would be just another zone.
However, another aspect of instancing is non-persistence. The area exists for only as long as its needed. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds will only exist for the week or two that they're needed and then they'll be taken down and a different map will be put in their place.
The question here is whether an area, due to its non-persistence, can be called an instance even if it's the only possible version. Think about it. You cap the battleground at 40v40v40 and start another one and it's clearly an instance. Make the cap high enough that it can't be reached (or don't make another one) and it's not.
Maybe we need a new word. "Non-persistent zone" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I think the argument about whether something is or isn't an instance might be coming from the somewhat unique situation that GW2 is providing here.
One aspect of instancing is the idea that each person, group, or raid who enters has their own version. They are separated from others. It's implied by the name, each has their own instance of the content. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds in GW2 are areas where everybody from the same server sees everybody. If what you were entering was something like a DAOC PVP area or a WoW Wintergrasp, then there would be no confusion. It would be just another zone.
However, another aspect of instancing is non-persistence. The area exists for only as long as its needed. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds will only exist for the week or two that they're needed and then they'll be taken down and a different map will be put in their place.
The question here is whether an area, due to its non-persistence, can be called an instance even if it's the only possible version. Think about it. You cap the battleground at 40v40v40 and start another one and it's clearly an instance. Make the cap high enough that it can't be reached (or don't make another one) and it's not.
Maybe we need a new word. "Non-persistent zone" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
It actually is persistent albeit for a week. We can just call it the WvW Zone.
I think the argument about whether something is or isn't an instance might be coming from the somewhat unique situation that GW2 is providing here.
One aspect of instancing is the idea that each person, group, or raid who enters has their own version. They are separated from others. It's implied by the name, each has their own instance of the content. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds in GW2 are areas where everybody from the same server sees everybody. If what you were entering was something like a DAOC PVP area or a WoW Wintergrasp, then there would be no confusion. It would be just another zone.
However, another aspect of instancing is non-persistence. The area exists for only as long as its needed. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds will only exist for the week or two that they're needed and then they'll be taken down and a different map will be put in their place.
The question here is whether an area, due to its non-persistence, can be called an instance even if it's the only possible version. Think about it. You cap the battleground at 40v40v40 and start another one and it's clearly an instance. Make the cap high enough that it can't be reached (or don't make another one) and it's not.
Maybe we need a new word. "Non-persistent zone" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
It actually is persistent albeit for a week. We can just call it the WvW Zone.
Well, lets consider this. Take a shard system where multiples of the same version are persistent. For as long as there are enough people in the other pieces of the shard, that shard exists, the world is there and persistent. When you leave that shard... and the server population drops, that instance of the zone disappears, along with everything that you've done in that zone and everything that happened.
Tabula Rasa was this way, City of Heroes has this, and I believe champions still does. So are these copies of these zones... "instances" of the zones because they are non persistent and only 1 actual zone where changes are persistent is the only "real" world? I mean you can enter these pieces of these zones, without a group, find a group inside, and complete a series of quests, but as soon as you move zones, you can come back and find that the instance you were just in is gone.
On a separate note, what about a game like (spiral knights) that allows you to start an instance, but a group of players could join you mid-game. Would that not qualify as an instance because you join alone, or without a group, yet you can either find people IN the instance already or people can join YOU at a later date? None of these instances are technically persistent either. As soon as you leave it resets.
Zones and instancing isn't so cut and dry. The lines appear to be blurred about as much as saying that this game is a Sandbox or Themepark, when you're trying to say its a hybrid.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Wow that's weird. All the things the OP cites as "dislikes" are "likes" for me.
Guess it takes all kinds to make the gaming world go 'round.
Same here.
I've gotten to the point where I don't bother arguing with people about aspects of GW2. I like everything in the game, I know for sure it's what I like, I'm not going to be let down. Then they argue and say it happened to all these other games and everything the developers say is just to make hype. All I can say is sorry your expectations for those games were so high, but I like what I've seen from the game, there's nothing that will disappoint me.
It really all comes down to personal preference. I know people hate seeing this but it makes sense:
You don't like it? Then it's not the game for you, find something else that'll suit your interests.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
Which sometimes means never. The disadvantage of that system. Especially when one of two factions is overwhelmingly bigger, and the other side gets more and more of a 'don't care enough' attitude.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
WvW-PvP has got most of this as well.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
In this case you can only hope a stronger force of players comes around to fight the enemy force occupying a zone or that the server is reset. Matches that last one week will solve balance issues in which one group manages to permanently control an area that contains a fortified structure and vendors with special items.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
And how do you plan to know when you will get attacked in WvW-PvP? You may be crafting stuff in a small settlement and get attacked by a raiding party that slipped past the main force of your server.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
In WvW-PvP you can level through PvPing, you can craft normal items as well as siege weapons. You may like open-world PvP, but there usually are no objectives that make it interesting for players to engage in it.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
You didn't expect to see one because they rarely occur since few players are willing to intentionally engage in it.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
But you haven't played ArenaNet's version of open-world PvP, so you can't be sure that you won't find WvW-PvP fun and exciting.
To be honest, there is nobody outside of ArenaNet that can actually cast a(n) (f)actual judgement on WvW-PvP, since there is too little public information available on the subject.
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Ye like doing daily quests in wow where 90% of the player base is horde and think world pvp is fun when you get outnumberd 10 to 1 on each quest you try to do.
I like the way Anet is doing their thing and the more i see from GW2 the more im impressed, i have seen many mmo's over the last 15 years and this might be the one who will create a lifetime of memory's.
PvP - Anet anounced WvW with a massive battlefield between realms - Esport - Max leveld and geared chars to pvp with.
If you are not impressed by what have been shown so far then i feel so damn sorry for you, it might take anothr decade or so to create an mmo that will surpase GW2.
keeping it short here, get the need to talk for 5 hours about GW2 when i try to explain a small thing you know ^^
The main thing I don't like about GW2 is the amount of hype it's getting. Reading some of the posts on this forum and some of the posts in this very thread, people are making it sound like it's going to be the best thing ever and destroy every MMORPG that came before it.
I appreciate that the game is trying to differentiate itself from other MMOs, but I don't see how the game can possibly live up to the amount of hype it is getting.
I am looking forward to trying GW2 like everyone else, but I think a lot of people will be disappointed when they actually get their hands on the game. I am not predicting that GW2 will be a bad game, I'm sure it will be a quality big-budget MMO, but there is no way it can possibly make everyone happy.
The main thing I don't like about GW2 is the amount of hype it's getting. Reading some of the posts on this forum and some of the posts in this very thread, people are making it sound like it's going to be the best thing ever and destroy every MMORPG that came before it.
I appreciate that the game is trying to differentiate itself from other MMOs, but I don't see how the game can possibly live up to the amount of hype it is getting.
I am looking forward to trying GW2 like everyone else, but I think a lot of people will be disappointed when they actually get their hands on the game. I am not predicting that GW2 will be a bad game, I'm sure it will be a quality big-budget MMO, but there is no way it can possibly make everyone happy.
Alright what are the kind of hopes you've seen in this thread that will lead to disappointment?
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
Contested zones exist. You're competing against mobs, rather than other players, but the principle is the same. You're fighting for a town and unlike in most MMOs, whether you win or not has an effect on the town, not just on whether or not the merchants there like you enough to serve you. Buildings can be burned to the ground and rebuilt. We also don't know how guilds work in GW2 and considering that guilds and alliances could 'own' towns in GW Factions, that's could be a big deal when it comes to contested zones.
Of course, there's the multi-zone WvWvW PvP, which you can level up in should you choose. While things change every week or two for the next round, you can effect things and 'live' in a world full of danger, the unknown and PvP. And guess what, this involves all the things you like in Open World PvP - protect those supply lines and lumber mills.
Open World PvP would totally undermine the co-operative environment Arenanet are trying to create with GW2's PvE and is absolutely unnecessary. You aren't 'going from a to b on a quest in GW2 because there are no traditional quests. You join in any event you find interesting enough to participate in and since many events involve travel, raids and large portions of zones, you'll find combat in places where there wasn't prior.
I hate being ganked in the middle of minding my own business, anything that avoids that has my blessing entirely.
"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right. This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"
Going to have to agree with all the points made by the thread starter. They are pretty much the same issues I have with the game as well. On top of that I'll add that I honestly don't like it when you don't have to specialize in anything, that anyone can do anything from combat to healing to raising. Basically though the game looks impressive visually, game mechanics it comes off as very vanilla and boring.
I expect more depth from a MMORPG, and this games mechanics are coming off like a FPS instead. Nothing wrong with being a FPS mind you, it is just not what I want from my MMORPGs. At this stage due to what the thread starter posted and my own added criticial views I doubt I'll try the game. I tend to try out most MMORPGs as they come out, instead with this one I'll just keep an eye on it like I did with Warhammer.
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Well you have to look at it like this. You will capture keeps, towers, resource nodes, villages, caravans, and your job is to help hold those while progressing to take over your enemies and hold that ground. It will be severely contested and you will be getting fights everywhere. Your solo guy has his place, your tight knit rogue groups have theirs, and your zerg mentallity people have their place. Just don't look at it as a loss of persistence, because I don't believe that is what ANet intended. What it is, is them taking DAoC and asking hmm, how can we improve upon this?
Well answer number one is: Actually allow somebody to indefinitely win. How do we do this? We implement a week long match, and finally there is an indefinite winner.
Answer number two, if one of the factions on a server, or even in a server cluster has much better players that PvP than x servers, then x servers are going to be in hell for the entirety of the game and probably jump to the other faction, or server. Thus, GW2 already didn't have factions, so it would have had to been with server clusters in the first place, but they didn't stop there. They implemented a system that helps the strong and helps the weak. You will be paired by your server strength, so this always presents a challenge for the strong servers, and it gives the weaker servers fighting chances because they are actually at their competition levels.
basically saying i dont like this game because its too good. honestly if Anet gets bad feedback from the customers they will definitely change the formula.
Going to have to agree with all the points made by the thread starter. They are pretty much the same issues I have with the game as well. On top of that I'll add that I honestly don't like it when you don't have to specialize in anything, that anyone can do anything from combat to healing to raising. Basically though the game looks impressive visually, game mechanics it comes off as very vanilla and boring.
I expect more depth from a MMORPG, and this games mechanics are coming off like a FPS instead. Nothing wrong with being a FPS mind you, it is just not what I want from my MMORPGs. At this stage due to what the thread starter posted and my own added criticial views I doubt I'll try the game. I tend to try out most MMORPGs as they come out, instead with this one I'll just keep an eye on it like I did with Warhammer.
Be more specific, you agree with all of his points? Then you don't like GW2. Because, all of those points, are everything that makes GW2, and it's simple you probably won't enjoy this game if you want your typical MMO.
Don't be so quick to judge, just because everyone can assisst their groups does not mean that the MMO doesn't have much depth. The problem with your viewpoint, is you're still seeing it as a heal focused game. This game is not heal focused, there will be time for heals, but there's not gonna be everyone constant heal spamming because it's a game that dmg. and survival revolves around heals.
No, the class makeup is more skill based. There is no rock, paper, scissors, and there is no this build trumps that build. This opens the floor for creativity with your build styles, and you will see some crazy group setups. This is as in depth as you can get, because when there is no rock, paper, scissors, then there is no cookie cutter. Yes, classes can switch their roles mid combat, but other classes and trait setups will me more adept at doing other thing. It's not an everybody is the same type setup, just because everyone can assume roles in combat does not liken them. Classes are vastly different in how they execute things.
You might be right on the FPS part as far as balance goes. The way class balance is looking is that of an FPS, but that is a good thing for MMO's. It really opens the floor for real competition, and there isn't people winning because of group comp, or class selection, or even build setups. Build setups are gonna just determine how you opperate in a group setting, and they will give you and your group overall flavor.
Going to have to agree with all the points made by the thread starter. They are pretty much the same issues I have with the game as well. On top of that I'll add that I honestly don't like it when you don't have to specialize in anything, that anyone can do anything from combat to healing to raising. Basically though the game looks impressive visually, game mechanics it comes off as very vanilla and boring.
I expect more depth from a MMORPG, and this games mechanics are coming off like a FPS instead. Nothing wrong with being a FPS mind you, it is just not what I want from my MMORPGs. At this stage due to what the thread starter posted and my own added criticial views I doubt I'll try the game. I tend to try out most MMORPGs as they come out, instead with this one I'll just keep an eye on it like I did with Warhammer.
ok so still I dont think people understand the class system. Switching weapons is switching "roles" mid combat due to what ever the group needs , The game is not about the single player but the group as a whole, just as guild wars 1 Is. having skills then mess well with you group is critical to your sucess in the game.
When increasing the need for well designed groups becomes shallow and sandbox qualities with-in classes (jack of all trades, no boaring talent trees just different Traits you load and unload) Is DEEMED SHALLOW.....then MMOs as we know it die. when a game is hyped due it being a rail game when you move from quest hub to quest hub and then end game raid...man how do you think all industry works, innovation is need for better, smoother products.
When you loose the drive to innovate you loose your passion. the time for slight twiking is over, change needs to happen in an industry domanted by WoW, I have no problems with WoW,
BUT want to know why WoW clones dont reach WoW numbers of subs....because why play something that is like WoW, but now WoW
Guild Wars 2 is different, the innovation they bring is staggering, and not everyone who loves MMOs will like it. But the the game has few, if any shallow qualites
Comments
Same here.
I've gotten to the point where I don't bother arguing with people about aspects of GW2. I like everything in the game, I know for sure it's what I like, I'm not going to be let down. Then they argue and say it happened to all these other games and everything the developers say is just to make hype. All I can say is sorry your expectations for those games were so high, but I like what I've seen from the game, there's nothing that will disappoint me.
It really all comes down to personal preference. I know people hate seeing this but it makes sense:
You don't like it? Then it's not the game for you, find something else that'll suit your interests.
Saying the mists is an instance is like saying the abyss in aion is in instance. You may have to port to get there, but it is a open zone like every other open zone in every other MMO. It is not a private instance.
I think you guys are gettin trolled...
And not a single f*ck was given
If you can see someone other than your group, it isn't an instance
If you can only see your group, it is an instance
Why is this dragged out so long, who cares if WvWvW is instanced or whatever, its just how you label the terminology.
If it is fun, not a single f*ck will be given whether it is instanced or not.
stop trolling
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Blueprint
| -> Object
| -> Object
| -> Object
^ Instantiated objects from the Blueprint.
Dungeon Blueprint
| -> New Dungeon instance
| -> New Dungeon instance
| -> New Dungeon instance
Character Model Blueprint
| -> New Character Model Instance
| -> New Character Model Instance
| -> New Character Model Instance
Game Client Blueprint
| -> New Game Client Instance
| -> New Game Client Instance
| -> New Game Client Instance
Commonly used phrase: For Instance (for example).
Example: For instance, yesterday i ate a hamburger.
Explanation: The speaker creates a conversational instance of his or her's yesterday hamburger-eating experience. The blueprint for this experience was in his or her memory.
Conclusion: Everything is a frikkin instance of something.
Suggestion: Start using words you can comprehend.
Examples: Dungeon is a good word. Battleground is a good word.
Words, lol
I think the argument about whether something is or isn't an instance might be coming from the somewhat unique situation that GW2 is providing here.
One aspect of instancing is the idea that each person, group, or raid who enters has their own version. They are separated from others. It's implied by the name, each has their own instance of the content. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds in GW2 are areas where everybody from the same server sees everybody. If what you were entering was something like a DAOC PVP area or a WoW Wintergrasp, then there would be no confusion. It would be just another zone.
However, another aspect of instancing is non-persistence. The area exists for only as long as its needed. I think we all agree that WvWvW battlegrounds will only exist for the week or two that they're needed and then they'll be taken down and a different map will be put in their place.
The question here is whether an area, due to its non-persistence, can be called an instance even if it's the only possible version. Think about it. You cap the battleground at 40v40v40 and start another one and it's clearly an instance. Make the cap high enough that it can't be reached (or don't make another one) and it's not.
Maybe we need a new word. "Non-persistent zone" doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
It actually is persistent albeit for a week. We can just call it the WvW Zone.
This is not a game.
Well, lets consider this. Take a shard system where multiples of the same version are persistent. For as long as there are enough people in the other pieces of the shard, that shard exists, the world is there and persistent. When you leave that shard... and the server population drops, that instance of the zone disappears, along with everything that you've done in that zone and everything that happened.
Tabula Rasa was this way, City of Heroes has this, and I believe champions still does. So are these copies of these zones... "instances" of the zones because they are non persistent and only 1 actual zone where changes are persistent is the only "real" world? I mean you can enter these pieces of these zones, without a group, find a group inside, and complete a series of quests, but as soon as you move zones, you can come back and find that the instance you were just in is gone.
On a separate note, what about a game like (spiral knights) that allows you to start an instance, but a group of players could join you mid-game. Would that not qualify as an instance because you join alone, or without a group, yet you can either find people IN the instance already or people can join YOU at a later date? None of these instances are technically persistent either. As soon as you leave it resets.
Zones and instancing isn't so cut and dry. The lines appear to be blurred about as much as saying that this game is a Sandbox or Themepark, when you're trying to say its a hybrid.
Could we maybe get to why persistant, non-instanced open world PVP is so important to you. What makes it better than a weekly-resetting, designated PVP-zone?
I would find that much more interesting as a base of discussion than trying to define what "instanced" means
Have you ever played a game like Fallen Earth, Warhammer, or Darkfall? SWTOR has it too.
When you play these games in an open world, where everyone is out there playing the game, you have a number of things happen.
1) Contested zones: I love'em. Take fallen earth for example,, in their contested zones, you spend a long time trying to convert that town to your faction. (this is an ffa game BTW 6 factions though). When you do, you then work towards building up the town, you get vendors to move in, and you get special items from these vendors. Having that area in this zone could assist you when you are outnumbered or outmatched.
What great about the open world contested zone though? Its always there until another group of players has a force strong enough to uproot you from the town. It doesn't go away in a week, or 2 weeks, it goes away when players are strong enough to take it.
2) PvP in areas you wouldn't really see PvP in, or, PvP servers: I like PvP servers, I also like flagging on PvE servers. I like the idea of not knowing when I will get attacked because, at the end of the day, just moving from point a to point b as requested by your last quest giver can get pretty boring.
Take DCUO for instance. I loved the game, but I played on a PvP server. Some people played on the PvE servers, ran through the game and got bored in a week or two. On the PvP server, it took much longer to level, but it was much more fun because you would constantly get attacked in areas where heroes and villain had conflicting quest objectives. Sometimes I would show up to a quest hub and instead of doing the NPC quests, my new quest was to help clear out villains so others could get their missions done. It was something that was usually unexpected (because you never knew how many of the other side, or your side, would be there) but it was extremely fun.
And that didn't go away. I could go to a different area and see a battle where I didn't expect to see one. As opposed to being able to just know the main capture points of the map and attack there with a massive force, or go to the area where a supply line is and attack a.. possibly, smaller force.
I'm not saying that instant action is a bad thing, but this kind of persistency and these unpredictable encounters are fun and exciting to me.
same here. totally agree
Which sometimes means never. The disadvantage of that system. Especially when one of two factions is overwhelmingly bigger, and the other side gets more and more of a 'don't care enough' attitude.
To be honest, there is nobody outside of ArenaNet that can actually cast a(n) (f)actual judgement on WvW-PvP, since there is too little public information available on the subject.
Both Alot and Meowhead are right, being able to capture an area indefinitely means that someone else won't be able to capture it at all if we do our job and keep the zone. I've never seen that to be the case in any of the games I've played simply because a group of players coordinating an attack at a time where defense is relatively low is ideal and yields the intended results.
I'm not saying it won't be fun. I'm saying that I have a preference. I'm saying I like being able to take an area and knowing that it won't go away at the end of the day, or week.
GW2 will satisfy some parts of gameplay for me, not doubt, SWTOR will satisfy others, and Firefall will satisfy yet, another and so on. While I dislike that the persistency will not be there, and that what you do in W v W will really not have an effect on what you see in the PvE world, I never though it wouldn't be fun. I just don't know how long it will be fun for ME.
Ye like doing daily quests in wow where 90% of the player base is horde and think world pvp is fun when you get outnumberd 10 to 1 on each quest you try to do.
I like the way Anet is doing their thing and the more i see from GW2 the more im impressed, i have seen many mmo's over the last 15 years and this might be the one who will create a lifetime of memory's.
So far it has:
PvE - impressed by ability's - movements - dodging - Event Bosses
PvP - Anet anounced WvW with a massive battlefield between realms - Esport - Max leveld and geared chars to pvp with.
If you are not impressed by what have been shown so far then i feel so damn sorry for you, it might take anothr decade or so to create an mmo that will surpase GW2.
keeping it short here, get the need to talk for 5 hours about GW2 when i try to explain a small thing you know ^^
The main thing I don't like about GW2 is the amount of hype it's getting. Reading some of the posts on this forum and some of the posts in this very thread, people are making it sound like it's going to be the best thing ever and destroy every MMORPG that came before it.
I appreciate that the game is trying to differentiate itself from other MMOs, but I don't see how the game can possibly live up to the amount of hype it is getting.
I am looking forward to trying GW2 like everyone else, but I think a lot of people will be disappointed when they actually get their hands on the game. I am not predicting that GW2 will be a bad game, I'm sure it will be a quality big-budget MMO, but there is no way it can possibly make everyone happy.
Alright what are the kind of hopes you've seen in this thread that will lead to disappointment?
Okay you talk about open world PvP in your early posts where anything can happen while you're doing your own thing, but now you mention WAR as an example. Really? Do you know that all WAR has are the RvR lakes, so your earliest argument about the Mists not being good enough because you know you're gonna get jumped there also applies to WAR. I know, because I played WAR, a lot.. If you liked WAR you will like GW2 even more. Why? Because WAR was a pale comparisson to the RvR father in DAoC, Mythic made both games but screwed WAR up with the 2 faction system. Now GW2 is going to give us PvP modelled after DAoC, how could you not love that?
Contested zones exist. You're competing against mobs, rather than other players, but the principle is the same. You're fighting for a town and unlike in most MMOs, whether you win or not has an effect on the town, not just on whether or not the merchants there like you enough to serve you. Buildings can be burned to the ground and rebuilt. We also don't know how guilds work in GW2 and considering that guilds and alliances could 'own' towns in GW Factions, that's could be a big deal when it comes to contested zones.
Of course, there's the multi-zone WvWvW PvP, which you can level up in should you choose. While things change every week or two for the next round, you can effect things and 'live' in a world full of danger, the unknown and PvP. And guess what, this involves all the things you like in Open World PvP - protect those supply lines and lumber mills.
Open World PvP would totally undermine the co-operative environment Arenanet are trying to create with GW2's PvE and is absolutely unnecessary. You aren't 'going from a to b on a quest in GW2 because there are no traditional quests. You join in any event you find interesting enough to participate in and since many events involve travel, raids and large portions of zones, you'll find combat in places where there wasn't prior.
I hate being ganked in the middle of minding my own business, anything that avoids that has my blessing entirely.
"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right. This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!"
Going to have to agree with all the points made by the thread starter. They are pretty much the same issues I have with the game as well. On top of that I'll add that I honestly don't like it when you don't have to specialize in anything, that anyone can do anything from combat to healing to raising. Basically though the game looks impressive visually, game mechanics it comes off as very vanilla and boring.
I expect more depth from a MMORPG, and this games mechanics are coming off like a FPS instead. Nothing wrong with being a FPS mind you, it is just not what I want from my MMORPGs. At this stage due to what the thread starter posted and my own added criticial views I doubt I'll try the game. I tend to try out most MMORPGs as they come out, instead with this one I'll just keep an eye on it like I did with Warhammer.
Well you have to look at it like this. You will capture keeps, towers, resource nodes, villages, caravans, and your job is to help hold those while progressing to take over your enemies and hold that ground. It will be severely contested and you will be getting fights everywhere. Your solo guy has his place, your tight knit rogue groups have theirs, and your zerg mentallity people have their place. Just don't look at it as a loss of persistence, because I don't believe that is what ANet intended. What it is, is them taking DAoC and asking hmm, how can we improve upon this?
Well answer number one is: Actually allow somebody to indefinitely win. How do we do this? We implement a week long match, and finally there is an indefinite winner.
Answer number two, if one of the factions on a server, or even in a server cluster has much better players that PvP than x servers, then x servers are going to be in hell for the entirety of the game and probably jump to the other faction, or server. Thus, GW2 already didn't have factions, so it would have had to been with server clusters in the first place, but they didn't stop there. They implemented a system that helps the strong and helps the weak. You will be paired by your server strength, so this always presents a challenge for the strong servers, and it gives the weaker servers fighting chances because they are actually at their competition levels.
{mod edit}
basically saying i dont like this game because its too good.
honestly if Anet gets bad feedback from the customers they will definitely change the formula.
-I am here to perform logic
Be more specific, you agree with all of his points? Then you don't like GW2. Because, all of those points, are everything that makes GW2, and it's simple you probably won't enjoy this game if you want your typical MMO.
Don't be so quick to judge, just because everyone can assisst their groups does not mean that the MMO doesn't have much depth. The problem with your viewpoint, is you're still seeing it as a heal focused game. This game is not heal focused, there will be time for heals, but there's not gonna be everyone constant heal spamming because it's a game that dmg. and survival revolves around heals.
No, the class makeup is more skill based. There is no rock, paper, scissors, and there is no this build trumps that build. This opens the floor for creativity with your build styles, and you will see some crazy group setups. This is as in depth as you can get, because when there is no rock, paper, scissors, then there is no cookie cutter. Yes, classes can switch their roles mid combat, but other classes and trait setups will me more adept at doing other thing. It's not an everybody is the same type setup, just because everyone can assume roles in combat does not liken them. Classes are vastly different in how they execute things.
You might be right on the FPS part as far as balance goes. The way class balance is looking is that of an FPS, but that is a good thing for MMO's. It really opens the floor for real competition, and there isn't people winning because of group comp, or class selection, or even build setups. Build setups are gonna just determine how you opperate in a group setting, and they will give you and your group overall flavor.
ok so still I dont think people understand the class system. Switching weapons is switching "roles" mid combat due to what ever the group needs , The game is not about the single player but the group as a whole, just as guild wars 1 Is. having skills then mess well with you group is critical to your sucess in the game.
When increasing the need for well designed groups becomes shallow and sandbox qualities with-in classes (jack of all trades, no boaring talent trees just different Traits you load and unload) Is DEEMED SHALLOW.....then MMOs as we know it die. when a game is hyped due it being a rail game when you move from quest hub to quest hub and then end game raid...man how do you think all industry works, innovation is need for better, smoother products.
When you loose the drive to innovate you loose your passion. the time for slight twiking is over, change needs to happen in an industry domanted by WoW, I have no problems with WoW,
BUT want to know why WoW clones dont reach WoW numbers of subs....because why play something that is like WoW, but now WoW
Guild Wars 2 is different, the innovation they bring is staggering, and not everyone who loves MMOs will like it. But the the game has few, if any shallow qualites