Some people don't like the departure from the MMO Trinity because they like being able to blame the healer. These people are one of the big reasons the movement to this type of system is going to be so fun. They will all stay in WoW or move to SWTOR and stay the hell away from a game where their inability to adapt to changing circumstances will be painfully obvious.
Charr: Outta my way. Human: What's your problem? Charr: Your thin skin.
You have to love the knock at SWTOR to prop up GW2. It's stuff like this that makes me have no interest in playing it at all.
What knock?
Knock knock.. Whos there? Guild Wars 2
"I once had a major developer tell me that Star Wars will be the last major MMO, that it will be the final giant dinosaur to rule the landscape, if that is true, then Guild Wars 2 is the ten thousand ton mammoth who is storming south at the dawn of a new ice age."
Kinda seems like a little of a knock to me.
But to reply to the thread:
5. I prefer specialized roles. I have a feeling GW2 is going to be chaotic in the lack of specialization. People will forget to heal themselves and it will be an all out dps fest.
Well that where skillfull players will be differentiate from the norm, players who remember to heal themselves when be able to survive, while other falls
4. Seems kinda silly to me as a mechanic. I'm dead, oh wait I'm not.
Well its never mentioned that you are dead, you are simply in an injured state, fighting for your life.
3. Everyone is going to be doing this now.
2. There whole alternate universe mist pvp is not really world pvp and is confined to the Mist area.
But if the Mist is as big as a world, does that not count as a world pvp?
1. Not really new, sorta like public quests, but nice take on it.
Well public quest was actually a nice idea, just wasn't implemented well enough, this time around, the game is completely built on these 'public quest', not like rift or WAR where it is simply an alternate way to progress. You don't want to stop for cinematic or dialogue? Just go out there for DE.
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.
I have to say, I like the whole "No Healers" thing. That way, nobody can blame me for standing in the fire. The only thing letting them die is themselves. That kinda solves the "OMFG NEWB WHY U NOT HEAL?" thing.
They did release a good game as theyr 1st, not a poor achivment on its own.
I was a mmo player long befor gw1 and i must say i did enjoy gw1, i didt think it lasted as long as the older mmo games but it beats alot of the new comers in that department. I couldt care less what the defenition is, i play more then just mmo games.
I know i had had fun in gw1 and will preorder gw2 from my previous experience and from what i have seen so far.
You have to love the knock at SWTOR to prop up GW2. It's stuff like this that makes me have no interest in playing it at all.
What knock?
"I once had a major developer tell me that Star Wars will be the last major MMO, that it will be the final giant dinosaur to rule the landscape, if that is true, then Guild Wars 2 is the ten thousand ton mammoth who is storming south at the dawn of a new ice age."
Kinda seems like a little of a knock to me.
But to reply to the thread:
5. I prefer specialized roles. I have a feeling GW2 is going to be chaotic in the lack of specialization. People will forget to heal themselves and it will be an all out dps fest.
You still have specialised roles but the difference is that you are not locked into it. They are chosen for specific situations. If you group with your friends to tackle a dungeon for example, you might equip more support skills that benefit the group. Like an AOE heal instead of a single heal that only targets yourself. Same with wards etc and skills that might supplement the skills that others bring.
So you still specialise, but you specialise based on encounter and who is with you. Instead of being locked into 1 specialisation.
Which is because it's instanced, and yet, people are running instances in THE mmo (namely WoW) all day long, so wheres the difference? Same with max level. Sure, you get max level quite fast, but people boast around that they got to max level in WoW within x days, and compared to WoW, you still got stuff to do, and not only running the same thing over and over *after* you got max level.
The difference between *name any modern MMO here* and GW is smaller than between for example UO and *name any modern MMO here*.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Which is because it's instanced, and yet, people are running instances in THE mmo (namely WoW) all day long, so wheres the difference? Same with max level. Sure, you get max level quite fast, but people boast around that they got to max level in WoW within x days, and compared to WoW, you still got stuff to do, and not only running the same thing over and over *after* you got max level.
The difference between *name any modern MMO here* and GW is smaller than between for example UO and *name any modern MMO here*.
While that most certainly is true. I still don't call it an MMO until the devs who created the game call it one. They called GW1 a CORPG...so it stands to reason i'll call it that as well.
That really is the only reason i stand behind the they haven't made an MMO before because they themselves say it isn't.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Anyone knocking Dynamic Events as a poor mans public quest need or refferring to the kill XX nature need to read this:
Eric Flannum: Thought this would be a good time to take advantage of this thread coming back. I wanted to explain something that may not be clear since the topic of kill X quests came up here earlier. This is going to be a bit of a long post so bear with me .
It is true that we do want to get away from the standard kill X MMO quest. One thing that’s important to realize is that while we desire to get rid of this sort of thing there are a finite number of actions one can undertake in a combat focused game and there are a finite number of ways to express to a player what they should be doing. I think too often we get caught up in semantics when the root of the problem is that the standard kill X quest is bad because it is unexciting and has no context or consequence.
For example let’s pretend we have a situation where a group of undead creatures is gathering in a swamp to attack a local fortress.
In a typical kill X quest I would walk up to the commander of the fortress and he’d have an exclamation mark over his head. I’d click on him and he would present me with text describing how evil and foul the undead in the swamp are and how if they are not dealt with they will overrun his fortress. I accept this task and head to the swamp. It is likely that I now have “Kill 10 zombies” as a quest objective. I enter the swamp, see zombies and start killing them. After killing 10 I decide to head back to the fortress and turn in my quest. If I hadn’t done the quest what would have happened? Would the zombies have attacked? Are they still going to attack? I killed 10 of them but there are still more of them out there, doesn’t that matter? This is the experience provided by the typical kill X quest.
In Guild Wars 2, let’s take the same set up and apply it to a dynamic event. As I approach the fortress the commander runs up to me and says out loud for everyone in the area to hear that there are zombies in the local swamp, they are building up to attack his fort and someone had better do something. I head to the swamp and notice that the usual wildlife is gone, having been slain by the zombie horde (you actually get to see this happen as the event starts) when I enter the event radius I have the objective of “Cull the Zombie Horde” followed by a percentage indicating how much of the horde remains and a timer. I start killing zombies as the timer counts down. If I and any other adventurers in the area can cull the horde down to 0% before time expires then the remaining zombies will flee and disaster has been averted. I’ll automatically receive a reward, the fortress remains safe and the original wildlife will return to the swamp. If I fail to cull the horde and the timer reaches zero then the zombies will all shamble out of the swamp and attack the fortress. I have failed the event but now a new event presents itself where I can defend the fortress from the horde. If the fortress is overrun it will remain occupied by zombies until cleared, a valuable travel point will be lost, merchants and other NPC’s will be unavailable. My act of killing the zombies actually protected the fortress with the consequence of possibly losing the fortress when I failed the event.
In each case I was killing zombies. In each case I had a goal up on screen that communicated very similar things. However, the experience that I had during and after each type of content was very different due to context and consequences. Hope that clears things up a bit.:END
I always appreciate a GW2 article, but I'm not sure this one really gets the game. I find a lot of these points lacking information about what makes them really exciting to me.
5. There will still be roles, but every player must also be somewhat self sufficient as well. You won't fail because one person didn't do their job. Players can switch roles on the fly. There's no ally targeted abilities. Heals can't be cast for as much as you'd like or as often as you'd like. There's a focus on avoiding damage, which can be done by proactively stopping the mob, or dodging its attacks.
4. The fact that everybody can rez everybody at any time in combat is more interesting (it takes longer each time so it's not easymode). This gives game designers the ability to make mobs hit really hard or do things that would be unfair in a traditional game, like 1-shot people. It's no longer an automatic wipe when someone goes down, now people can react, switch roles if they have to, and possibly recover.
3. Personal stories have permanent instanced consequences, based not only on choices made during character creation, but also throughout the story (do I save the orphanage or the hospital? The other one stays wrecked in your home instance). Based on the character creation choices alone, there's probably enough variation you could do the same race 3 times and get different stories. This makes for a lot of replayability.
2. It's 3 server PVP in battles that last 2 weeks long. And win/loss standings are kept in order to match you up against worlds of equal strength next time. Not only is 3 way PVP being brought back, but you're not always dealing with the same population imbalance. You can be the big faction one time and the small one the next. The fact that standings are kept will keep people interested because they're fighting for something, not just gaining tokens and off to the next BG and nobody cares whether you won or lost.
1. That dynamic events change the world is a nice touch, but it's only mildly interesting to me. The real key is that they build community. They're not isolating like traditional quests, and they're not just "one and done" like rifts or public quests. They're purely cooperative so you want to see other people, and they chain together so those people stay working together for a while and hopefully get to know one another. I could go on and on for a page about them, but I've written enough in this post. I've said it before, if you don't think dynamic events are amazing, then you just don't get them.
"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 want to play GW2, really I do, but do I crave it? No.
Five reasons why I do not crave GW2:
(1) No more heroes ...
(2) Less instancing than GW1 ...
(3) SWTOR
(4) Neverwinter
(5) GW2 is more LFG-dependent than GW1 (and I really hate LFG)
There's lots of good stuff in GW2, but I know I am just not as hyped about it as (most?) people. I would have preferred a new GW1 campaign, frankly, but oh well.
SW-TOR is a game i will likely only play for 30-60 days before WoWing out, but GW2 is the game i will likely play for years expansion after expansion long after the burn factor sets in if it ever does..
Looking forward to this one more than any game since WoW itself released!
In guild wars 1 everyone can be a healer a too, lol. Just have amonk or rit as your secondary. And everyone usually has a self a heal. It'd be weaird if you didnt. So I don't see what the big deal is.
I think everyone thats hyped about GW2 has played GW1. We see how great GW1 is, so GW2 will definately be greater.
I want to play GW2, really I do, but do I crave it? No.
Five reasons why I do not crave GW2:
(1) No more heroes ...
(2) Less instancing than GW1 ...
(3) SWTOR
(4) Neverwinter
(5) GW2 is more LFG-dependent than GW1 (and I really hate LFG)
There's lots of good stuff in GW2, but I know I am just not as hyped about it as (most?) people. I would have preferred a new GW1 campaign, frankly, but oh well.
I'm not trying to bash your comment or anything, but why would you want less instancing and heroes? Plus, GW2 is not anywhere near more "LFG-dependent than GW1", everyone can heal themselves, fill out any roll, etc.
But I know what you mean.. a lot of people have doubts.. I have a few, but I'm still hyped for this game. It annoys me when everyone is hyping the shiet out of it cause it just leads to bashing from people who hate it and people writing misinformative articles who love it.
In guild wars 1 everyone can be a healer a too, lol. Just have amonk or rit as your secondary. And everyone usually has a self a heal. It'd be weaird if you didnt. So I don't see what the big deal is.
I think everyone thats hyped about GW2 has played GW1. We see how great GW1 is, so GW2 will definately be greater.
Some people's hype is a bit misguided. They believe it will be like GW1 when it most certainly is not, hopefully, not a lot of people think this way.
I have followed SWTOR for a number of years, recent annoucements have shaken my confidence in this game somewhat. Where as GW2 annoucements has made the game come more alive for me. The beauty of it all is that the pricing model in GW2 makes both a viable option for me, I suspect though that i will be hanging around in GW2 more than SWTOR, on the basis that WOW with a story line is not going to hold me to long.
My concern about dynamic events stems from the fact that at SOME point, the lower areas will empty out and leave only a smatternig of people to play there. How is this fixed in GW2? Yay I can make a choice whether to let the zombies invade _______. But in RIFT, there were so many people the events scaled to people who didn't actually participate. Thus it scaled to a level that the smattering of participants had ZERO chance of victory. Over and over.
I am happy they are ridding the world of the holy trinity. The min/max perspective where people MUST be tanks or MUST be healers was quite old. Having multiple hybrids makes life far more interesting both for grouping and solo play.
I don't care about PvP. Never have, never will. People who want more sandbox, feel free to go to a sandbox. Sandbox's will NEVER be huge so long as casuals can be ganked/griefed on a whim.
My concern about dynamic events stems from the fact that at SOME point, the lower areas will empty out and leave only a smatternig of people to play there. How is this fixed in GW2? Yay I can make a choice whether to let the zombies invade _______. But in RIFT, there were so many people the events scaled to people who didn't actually participate. Thus it scaled to a level that the smattering of participants had ZERO chance of victory. Over and over.
I am happy they are ridding the world of the holy trinity. The min/max perspective where people MUST be tanks or MUST be healers was quite old. Having multiple hybrids makes life far more interesting both for grouping and solo play.
I don't care about PvP. Never have, never will. People who want more sandbox, feel free to go to a sandbox. Sandbox's will NEVER be huge so long as casuals can be ganked/griefed on a whim.
The answer to your question is that the enemies take over a lot of territory. Dynamic events can reach an endpoint where it will stay without player intervention and it can sit that way for months if it has to. A player approaching a defeated outpost would get notified one way or another of a dynamic event to liberate it. If they are successful, friendly NPCs might respawn and then there might be another event to chain towards taking back some of the other hostile territory.
Two things to keep in mind. Dynamic events chain, they can sometimes even interact a bit with other DEs, but there's a limit on how far they'll go. The zone won't be just a barren wasteland of enemy NPCs that would overwhelm any player who stepped outside the major city.
Second, remember that the events scale up in difficulty with more people who show up. So if there is only one guy there at a DE, it should still be doable by someone who plays smartly. Though hopefully more people will be there to increase the chaos, player interaction, and overall fun. Also, you address the issue of noninteraction of events. We're told that DEs constantly check to see who is participating in the event and scale accordingly. You can't grief an event and increase its difficulty by standing in it doing nothing.
"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
Some people don't like the departure from the MMO Trinity because they like being able to blame the healer. These people are one of the big reasons the movement to this type of system is going to be so fun. They will all stay in WoW or move to SWTOR and stay the hell away from a game where their inability to adapt to changing circumstances will be painfully obvious.
More likely someone will get bullied into healing, because 'anyone can do it', and the others in the group don't think it's cool enough for them to do. Anyone whose ever played a hybrid class in most MMOs come across this at some point towards endgame, 'OH MY GAWD U SPECCED WRONG 4 HEALZ!?!' or 'you need to do such and such for the guild because you can', basically you have to a job you might not want to see some content.
The game doesn't smash any trinty, you still need the same things for the content. It's just now the, 'runt' in the litter can do the crap jobs, unless you can find a decent bunch of folks to get through.
GW2 looks like it'll be a fun game but trying to make out it's some sort of revolutionary experience for only those 'smart' enough to get it, is a crock frankly.
The fact that everyone can heal does not mean there won't be a place for "healers" in a party. I ecpect it to boil down to one or more in the party still being the ones mainly responsible for healing. However, now it will be independent of who chose what class at the time of character creation. Some will certainly be better than keeping people alive than others, as always. They just took away the class to allow for more flexibility of having that role in a party.
The healing thing doesn't matter, if you gotta spec for it, and use points, even if not, people will still cry and expect the healers to do it.
If one class does it best, they will expect that class to do it, and cry when they aren't doing it...watch.
You CAN'T spec for healing.
Healing skills wil NOT be able to maintain others without their active participation in keeping themselves alive. It will only let them stay alive a little bit longer. Healing is also not going to be a focus of ANY class. Not elementalists. Not guardians. Not ranger. Not warrior. Not necromancers. Not engineers. Not thieves. Not the mystery class.
No class will be required to play the game.
No players are going to get very far in this game if they can't play for themselves as well as work with others to get the job done.
Support is a part of every class, just as damage is a part of every class, but no 2 classes are alike.
Players who don't understand this will get lots of opportunity to learn how the game is actually going to work...or they will eat lots of dirt.
People who like sitting in the back letting others do the work will learn that they can do everything they can to support others while still being in the action.
players who cry at others not healing will look like fools. Every class can support. If you feel like you need more support, you should do something about it.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
[quote=Hyperbeam]More likely someone will get bullied into healing, because 'anyone can do it', and the others in the group don't think it's cool enough for them to do. Anyone whose ever played a hybrid class in most MMOs come across this at some point towards endgame, 'OH MY GAWD U SPECCED WRONG 4 HEALZ!?!' or 'you need to do such and such for the guild because you can', basically you have to a job you might not want to see some content.[/quote]
The fallacy here is that other people [i]can't[/i] keep you alive. The numbers are stacked in such a way that outside support is supplemental at best when compared to the self-heals. If you have a health problem, it's [i]your[/i] problem.
The healing thing doesn't matter, if you gotta spec for it, and use points, even if not, people will still cry and expect the healers to do it.
If one class does it best, they will expect that class to do it, and cry when they aren't doing it...watch.
There are _no_ "target-other-ally" spells in GW2. None. There are ground-targetted spells, spells that affect everyone around you, and spells that target enemies, that's it. Additionally, the only healing effects we've seen have been small (~10% of what your own self heal can do) and/or non-stacking regeneration effects that many classes can apply with equal ease. People expecting to be healed by someone else will die repeatedly until they figure out that they need to push button 6. Oh, yeah, your self heal is stapled to your bar! Why wouldn't you use it? You don't want to spec points for it? Hey, guess what, there are only 4 attribute lines, and (as of the current demos) your self-heal's efficiency isn't tied to any of them, it's just based on the rank of the skill you have and your level. They may change it to scale with power and precision, the same attributes that increase all of your spells and attacks.
You will not be able to redbar in GW2. You will not be able to rely on someone else to redbar you in GW2. You will never need to be redbarred in GW2, because you'll have healing capabilities on your bar at all times. When they say "anyone can heal", they mean "anyone can heal themselves".
Comments
Some people don't like the departure from the MMO Trinity because they like being able to blame the healer. These people are one of the big reasons the movement to this type of system is going to be so fun. They will all stay in WoW or move to SWTOR and stay the hell away from a game where their inability to adapt to changing circumstances will be painfully obvious.
Charr: Outta my way.
Human: What's your problem?
Charr: Your thin skin.
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.
I have to say, I like the whole "No Healers" thing. That way, nobody can blame me for standing in the fire. The only thing letting them die is themselves. That kinda solves the "OMFG NEWB WHY U NOT HEAL?" thing.
They did release a good game as theyr 1st, not a poor achivment on its own.
I was a mmo player long befor gw1 and i must say i did enjoy gw1, i didt think it lasted as long as the older mmo games but it beats alot of the new comers in that department. I couldt care less what the defenition is, i play more then just mmo games.
I know i had had fun in gw1 and will preorder gw2 from my previous experience and from what i have seen so far.
You still have specialised roles but the difference is that you are not locked into it. They are chosen for specific situations. If you group with your friends to tackle a dungeon for example, you might equip more support skills that benefit the group. Like an AOE heal instead of a single heal that only targets yourself. Same with wards etc and skills that might supplement the skills that others bring.
So you still specialise, but you specialise based on encounter and who is with you. Instead of being locked into 1 specialisation.
Which is because it's instanced, and yet, people are running instances in THE mmo (namely WoW) all day long, so wheres the difference? Same with max level. Sure, you get max level quite fast, but people boast around that they got to max level in WoW within x days, and compared to WoW, you still got stuff to do, and not only running the same thing over and over *after* you got max level.
The difference between *name any modern MMO here* and GW is smaller than between for example UO and *name any modern MMO here*.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
While that most certainly is true. I still don't call it an MMO until the devs who created the game call it one. They called GW1 a CORPG...so it stands to reason i'll call it that as well.
That really is the only reason i stand behind the they haven't made an MMO before because they themselves say it isn't.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Anyone knocking Dynamic Events as a poor mans public quest need or refferring to the kill XX nature need to read this:
Eric Flannum: Thought this would be a good time to take advantage of this thread coming back. I wanted to explain something that may not be clear since the topic of kill X quests came up here earlier. This is going to be a bit of a long post so bear with me .
It is true that we do want to get away from the standard kill X MMO quest. One thing that’s important to realize is that while we desire to get rid of this sort of thing there are a finite number of actions one can undertake in a combat focused game and there are a finite number of ways to express to a player what they should be doing. I think too often we get caught up in semantics when the root of the problem is that the standard kill X quest is bad because it is unexciting and has no context or consequence.
For example let’s pretend we have a situation where a group of undead creatures is gathering in a swamp to attack a local fortress.
In a typical kill X quest I would walk up to the commander of the fortress and he’d have an exclamation mark over his head. I’d click on him and he would present me with text describing how evil and foul the undead in the swamp are and how if they are not dealt with they will overrun his fortress. I accept this task and head to the swamp. It is likely that I now have “Kill 10 zombies” as a quest objective. I enter the swamp, see zombies and start killing them. After killing 10 I decide to head back to the fortress and turn in my quest. If I hadn’t done the quest what would have happened? Would the zombies have attacked? Are they still going to attack? I killed 10 of them but there are still more of them out there, doesn’t that matter? This is the experience provided by the typical kill X quest.
In Guild Wars 2, let’s take the same set up and apply it to a dynamic event. As I approach the fortress the commander runs up to me and says out loud for everyone in the area to hear that there are zombies in the local swamp, they are building up to attack his fort and someone had better do something. I head to the swamp and notice that the usual wildlife is gone, having been slain by the zombie horde (you actually get to see this happen as the event starts) when I enter the event radius I have the objective of “Cull the Zombie Horde” followed by a percentage indicating how much of the horde remains and a timer. I start killing zombies as the timer counts down. If I and any other adventurers in the area can cull the horde down to 0% before time expires then the remaining zombies will flee and disaster has been averted. I’ll automatically receive a reward, the fortress remains safe and the original wildlife will return to the swamp. If I fail to cull the horde and the timer reaches zero then the zombies will all shamble out of the swamp and attack the fortress. I have failed the event but now a new event presents itself where I can defend the fortress from the horde. If the fortress is overrun it will remain occupied by zombies until cleared, a valuable travel point will be lost, merchants and other NPC’s will be unavailable. My act of killing the zombies actually protected the fortress with the consequence of possibly losing the fortress when I failed the event.
In each case I was killing zombies. In each case I had a goal up on screen that communicated very similar things. However, the experience that I had during and after each type of content was very different due to context and consequences. Hope that clears things up a bit.:END
I always appreciate a GW2 article, but I'm not sure this one really gets the game. I find a lot of these points lacking information about what makes them really exciting to me.
5. There will still be roles, but every player must also be somewhat self sufficient as well. You won't fail because one person didn't do their job. Players can switch roles on the fly. There's no ally targeted abilities. Heals can't be cast for as much as you'd like or as often as you'd like. There's a focus on avoiding damage, which can be done by proactively stopping the mob, or dodging its attacks.
4. The fact that everybody can rez everybody at any time in combat is more interesting (it takes longer each time so it's not easymode). This gives game designers the ability to make mobs hit really hard or do things that would be unfair in a traditional game, like 1-shot people. It's no longer an automatic wipe when someone goes down, now people can react, switch roles if they have to, and possibly recover.
3. Personal stories have permanent instanced consequences, based not only on choices made during character creation, but also throughout the story (do I save the orphanage or the hospital? The other one stays wrecked in your home instance). Based on the character creation choices alone, there's probably enough variation you could do the same race 3 times and get different stories. This makes for a lot of replayability.
2. It's 3 server PVP in battles that last 2 weeks long. And win/loss standings are kept in order to match you up against worlds of equal strength next time. Not only is 3 way PVP being brought back, but you're not always dealing with the same population imbalance. You can be the big faction one time and the small one the next. The fact that standings are kept will keep people interested because they're fighting for something, not just gaining tokens and off to the next BG and nobody cares whether you won or lost.
1. That dynamic events change the world is a nice touch, but it's only mildly interesting to me. The real key is that they build community. They're not isolating like traditional quests, and they're not just "one and done" like rifts or public quests. They're purely cooperative so you want to see other people, and they chain together so those people stay working together for a while and hopefully get to know one another. I could go on and on for a page about them, but I've written enough in this post. I've said it before, if you don't think dynamic events are amazing, then you just don't get them.
"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
McDonalds "I'm loving it" moment.
I want to play GW2, really I do, but do I crave it? No.
Five reasons why I do not crave GW2:
(1) No more heroes ...
(2) Less instancing than GW1 ...
(3) SWTOR
(4) Neverwinter
(5) GW2 is more LFG-dependent than GW1 (and I really hate LFG)
There's lots of good stuff in GW2, but I know I am just not as hyped about it as (most?) people. I would have preferred a new GW1 campaign, frankly, but oh well.
SW-TOR is a game i will likely only play for 30-60 days before WoWing out, but GW2 is the game i will likely play for years expansion after expansion long after the burn factor sets in if it ever does..
Looking forward to this one more than any game since WoW itself released!
Playing GW2..
In guild wars 1 everyone can be a healer a too, lol. Just have amonk or rit as your secondary. And everyone usually has a self a heal. It'd be weaird if you didnt. So I don't see what the big deal is.
I think everyone thats hyped about GW2 has played GW1. We see how great GW1 is, so GW2 will definately be greater.
I'm not trying to bash your comment or anything, but why would you want less instancing and heroes? Plus, GW2 is not anywhere near more "LFG-dependent than GW1", everyone can heal themselves, fill out any roll, etc.
But I know what you mean.. a lot of people have doubts.. I have a few, but I'm still hyped for this game. It annoys me when everyone is hyping the shiet out of it cause it just leads to bashing from people who hate it and people writing misinformative articles who love it.
Some people's hype is a bit misguided. They believe it will be like GW1 when it most certainly is not, hopefully, not a lot of people think this way.
This is not a game.
I have followed SWTOR for a number of years, recent annoucements have shaken my confidence in this game somewhat. Where as GW2 annoucements has made the game come more alive for me. The beauty of it all is that the pricing model in GW2 makes both a viable option for me, I suspect though that i will be hanging around in GW2 more than SWTOR, on the basis that WOW with a story line is not going to hold me to long.
Currently Waiting for Guild Wars 2.
I realy donno why people are <span class="hps" title="Clique para mostrar tradu
My concern about dynamic events stems from the fact that at SOME point, the lower areas will empty out and leave only a smatternig of people to play there. How is this fixed in GW2? Yay I can make a choice whether to let the zombies invade _______. But in RIFT, there were so many people the events scaled to people who didn't actually participate. Thus it scaled to a level that the smattering of participants had ZERO chance of victory. Over and over.
I am happy they are ridding the world of the holy trinity. The min/max perspective where people MUST be tanks or MUST be healers was quite old. Having multiple hybrids makes life far more interesting both for grouping and solo play.
I don't care about PvP. Never have, never will. People who want more sandbox, feel free to go to a sandbox. Sandbox's will NEVER be huge so long as casuals can be ganked/griefed on a whim.
The answer to your question is that the enemies take over a lot of territory. Dynamic events can reach an endpoint where it will stay without player intervention and it can sit that way for months if it has to. A player approaching a defeated outpost would get notified one way or another of a dynamic event to liberate it. If they are successful, friendly NPCs might respawn and then there might be another event to chain towards taking back some of the other hostile territory.
Two things to keep in mind. Dynamic events chain, they can sometimes even interact a bit with other DEs, but there's a limit on how far they'll go. The zone won't be just a barren wasteland of enemy NPCs that would overwhelm any player who stepped outside the major city.
Second, remember that the events scale up in difficulty with more people who show up. So if there is only one guy there at a DE, it should still be doable by someone who plays smartly. Though hopefully more people will be there to increase the chaos, player interaction, and overall fun. Also, you address the issue of noninteraction of events. We're told that DEs constantly check to see who is participating in the event and scale accordingly. You can't grief an event and increase its difficulty by standing in it doing nothing.
This video is long but is the source for a lot of this info. http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013691/Designing-Guild-Wars-2-Dynamic
"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
The healing thing doesn't matter, if you gotta spec for it, and use points, even if not, people will still cry and expect the healers to do it.
If one class does it best, they will expect that class to do it, and cry when they aren't doing it...watch.
More likely someone will get bullied into healing, because 'anyone can do it', and the others in the group don't think it's cool enough for them to do. Anyone whose ever played a hybrid class in most MMOs come across this at some point towards endgame, 'OH MY GAWD U SPECCED WRONG 4 HEALZ!?!' or 'you need to do such and such for the guild because you can', basically you have to a job you might not want to see some content.
The game doesn't smash any trinty, you still need the same things for the content. It's just now the, 'runt' in the litter can do the crap jobs, unless you can find a decent bunch of folks to get through.
GW2 looks like it'll be a fun game but trying to make out it's some sort of revolutionary experience for only those 'smart' enough to get it, is a crock frankly.
The fact that everyone can heal does not mean there won't be a place for "healers" in a party. I ecpect it to boil down to one or more in the party still being the ones mainly responsible for healing. However, now it will be independent of who chose what class at the time of character creation. Some will certainly be better than keeping people alive than others, as always. They just took away the class to allow for more flexibility of having that role in a party.
You CAN'T spec for healing.
Healing skills wil NOT be able to maintain others without their active participation in keeping themselves alive. It will only let them stay alive a little bit longer. Healing is also not going to be a focus of ANY class. Not elementalists. Not guardians. Not ranger. Not warrior. Not necromancers. Not engineers. Not thieves. Not the mystery class.
No class will be required to play the game.
No players are going to get very far in this game if they can't play for themselves as well as work with others to get the job done.
Support is a part of every class, just as damage is a part of every class, but no 2 classes are alike.
Players who don't understand this will get lots of opportunity to learn how the game is actually going to work...or they will eat lots of dirt.
People who like sitting in the back letting others do the work will learn that they can do everything they can to support others while still being in the action.
players who cry at others not healing will look like fools. Every class can support. If you feel like you need more support, you should do something about it.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
[quote=Hyperbeam]More likely someone will get bullied into healing, because 'anyone can do it', and the others in the group don't think it's cool enough for them to do. Anyone whose ever played a hybrid class in most MMOs come across this at some point towards endgame, 'OH MY GAWD U SPECCED WRONG 4 HEALZ!?!' or 'you need to do such and such for the guild because you can', basically you have to a job you might not want to see some content.[/quote]
The fallacy here is that other people [i]can't[/i] keep you alive. The numbers are stacked in such a way that outside support is supplemental at best when compared to the self-heals. If you have a health problem, it's [i]your[/i] problem.
There are _no_ "target-other-ally" spells in GW2. None. There are ground-targetted spells, spells that affect everyone around you, and spells that target enemies, that's it. Additionally, the only healing effects we've seen have been small (~10% of what your own self heal can do) and/or non-stacking regeneration effects that many classes can apply with equal ease. People expecting to be healed by someone else will die repeatedly until they figure out that they need to push button 6. Oh, yeah, your self heal is stapled to your bar! Why wouldn't you use it? You don't want to spec points for it? Hey, guess what, there are only 4 attribute lines, and (as of the current demos) your self-heal's efficiency isn't tied to any of them, it's just based on the rank of the skill you have and your level. They may change it to scale with power and precision, the same attributes that increase all of your spells and attacks.
You will not be able to redbar in GW2. You will not be able to rely on someone else to redbar you in GW2. You will never need to be redbarred in GW2, because you'll have healing capabilities on your bar at all times. When they say "anyone can heal", they mean "anyone can heal themselves".
Oh, this also applies to tanking, btw.
Iccarus: that's a great quote.