On June 27 2011 01:43 UdderChaos wrote: How complex will the fighting in this be? I raided and pvp'd in wow from vanilla to just before wotlk came out and i cant really see how having such a limited amount of skills can create any sort of skill level, especially as the other people in this thread saying they took out some of the mechanincs from GW1 from what we understand, although i only played GW1 a bit. Can anyone re-assure me? Becuase as a student the lack of a monthly fee is very appealing, plus the development team being a lot of the old blizzard folks and world of war craft going down the pan from a hardcore gamers perspective anyways.
Afaik it's possible to swap weapons in battle, therefore you're constantly swapping between the first 5 skills you get out of your weapons. Also I'm pretty sure that it's possible to dodge attacks, and perhaps you have to be able to aim attacks too? There will also be a lot of cross-class skill combinations, which will be interesting to see how it will turn out in both pvp and pve. It's hard to tell because of the lack of any dedicated healing/tanking classes (afaik) how pvp/pve will turn out, but I can see it working. Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be Build Wars ^.^.
I don't think Build Wars is necessarily a bad thing, in today's world, gamers like choice, they like variety. Having every "xx" class use the same build is bland.
Would you not like the freedom to customize your character to your own tastes and builds, rather than the "popular" consensus?
Well obviously variety is good, but from what I heard modern GW1 turned into rock paper scissors based on build picking, although I highly doubt GW2 would ever turn out like that, just because of the variability added by weapon swapping, and lack of healers (in the sense of what monks were in GW1).
I didn't follow GW2 development that much, so i probably missed some big announcement: What did you mean with lack of healers? Did they remove/change monks a lot?
I really liked the monks and the heal-system in GW1 and would really hate it if they'd change that into the horrible WoW-like healers. Healing in GW1 required a lot of skill and you could easily distinguish good monks from just average monks, especially in PvP.
If you want to get really fancy you throw in a regeneration heal in there too.
The holy trinity is inherently flawed because if that healer or tank or whatever is not there, or your friend doesn't want to play that role, you can't do anything. If your guilds main tank is off on his Birthday, or is physically unable to play or whatever -- you can't do that raid anymore without him. It puts too much reliance on too few people. By removing it, it puts equal responsibility on everyone.
On June 27 2011 03:55 Drey wrote: This is taking way to long to get released, game development started in 2007 and its barely in alpha WTF
I know they should not released a bad game but its taking too long.
Thats what people said about Warhammer, and even though it was postponed TWICE it was still the biggest flop in mmo history.
I have more faith in GW2 though.
I just hope I can get as much out of vanilla GW2 as I got out of vanilla GW1. I'll be heartbroken if they have already completely DLC/expansions available practically at launch.
They've already stated a couple of times they're breaking away from the "expansion" mold. Instead they will offer more in the way of single player content in their online shop. Nothing is certain yet though, as they love to say.
Not exactly, they said they are staying away from making standalone campaigns like they did with GW1 but instad just make lots of halfassed expansions like EotN.
Well I was hitting on the idea they're trying to avoid selling half a game at launch, only to have the other half released later as an expansion pack.
Yes and no, off the top of my head I can't think of any game that had 3 independent and non-interlaced storylines like gw1, but assuming the expansions will include a higher level cap or at the very least new endgame content my point stands.
I'd really have to see the numbers to agree on whether having three separate interlacing games is a good pricing module or not, because from what casual friends playing the game told me I always assumed that it was. From what they said they ended up turning eotn into the paid dlc it became only because they had time restrictions and needed some quick money, and this background mentality can't be good for the production of additional content.
On June 27 2011 01:43 UdderChaos wrote: How complex will the fighting in this be? I raided and pvp'd in wow from vanilla to just before wotlk came out and i cant really see how having such a limited amount of skills can create any sort of skill level, especially as the other people in this thread saying they took out some of the mechanincs from GW1 from what we understand, although i only played GW1 a bit. Can anyone re-assure me? Becuase as a student the lack of a monthly fee is very appealing, plus the development team being a lot of the old blizzard folks and world of war craft going down the pan from a hardcore gamers perspective anyways.
Afaik it's possible to swap weapons in battle, therefore you're constantly swapping between the first 5 skills you get out of your weapons. Also I'm pretty sure that it's possible to dodge attacks, and perhaps you have to be able to aim attacks too? There will also be a lot of cross-class skill combinations, which will be interesting to see how it will turn out in both pvp and pve. It's hard to tell because of the lack of any dedicated healing/tanking classes (afaik) how pvp/pve will turn out, but I can see it working. Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be Build Wars ^.^.
I don't think Build Wars is necessarily a bad thing, in today's world, gamers like choice, they like variety. Having every "xx" class use the same build is bland.
Would you not like the freedom to customize your character to your own tastes and builds, rather than the "popular" consensus?
Well obviously variety is good, but from what I heard modern GW1 turned into rock paper scissors based on build picking, although I highly doubt GW2 would ever turn out like that, just because of the variability added by weapon swapping, and lack of healers (in the sense of what monks were in GW1).
I didn't follow GW2 development that much, so i probably missed some big announcement: What did you mean with lack of healers? Did they remove/change monks a lot?
I really liked the monks and the heal-system in GW1 and would really hate it if they'd change that into the horrible WoW-like healers. Healing in GW1 required a lot of skill and you could easily distinguish good monks from just average monks, especially in PvP.
If you want to get really fancy you throw in a regeneration heal in there too.
The holy trinity is inherently flawed because if that healer or tank or whatever is not there, or your friend doesn't want to play that role, you can't do anything. If your guilds main tank is off on his Birthday, or is physically unable to play or whatever -- you can't do that raid anymore without him. It puts too much reliance on too few people. By removing it, it puts equal responsibility on everyone.
But the tank/damage/heal system is also making every single person of the team important. If everyone can do everything, why have different classes at all if you can replace anyone?
Also, having big differences between classes adds a lot to the PvP combat, which is imho most fun in GW1. Keeping a team alive for a minute 5v8 while your secondary monk and two others are split off and before the opponent sent a group back was always the most exciting moment in any GvG which required perfect teamwork and interaction between every class. The "make everyone equal" mentality seems to water this down a lot...
On June 27 2011 01:43 UdderChaos wrote: How complex will the fighting in this be? I raided and pvp'd in wow from vanilla to just before wotlk came out and i cant really see how having such a limited amount of skills can create any sort of skill level, especially as the other people in this thread saying they took out some of the mechanincs from GW1 from what we understand, although i only played GW1 a bit. Can anyone re-assure me? Becuase as a student the lack of a monthly fee is very appealing, plus the development team being a lot of the old blizzard folks and world of war craft going down the pan from a hardcore gamers perspective anyways.
Afaik it's possible to swap weapons in battle, therefore you're constantly swapping between the first 5 skills you get out of your weapons. Also I'm pretty sure that it's possible to dodge attacks, and perhaps you have to be able to aim attacks too? There will also be a lot of cross-class skill combinations, which will be interesting to see how it will turn out in both pvp and pve. It's hard to tell because of the lack of any dedicated healing/tanking classes (afaik) how pvp/pve will turn out, but I can see it working. Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be Build Wars ^.^.
I don't think Build Wars is necessarily a bad thing, in today's world, gamers like choice, they like variety. Having every "xx" class use the same build is bland.
Would you not like the freedom to customize your character to your own tastes and builds, rather than the "popular" consensus?
Well obviously variety is good, but from what I heard modern GW1 turned into rock paper scissors based on build picking, although I highly doubt GW2 would ever turn out like that, just because of the variability added by weapon swapping, and lack of healers (in the sense of what monks were in GW1).
I didn't follow GW2 development that much, so i probably missed some big announcement: What did you mean with lack of healers? Did they remove/change monks a lot?
I really liked the monks and the heal-system in GW1 and would really hate it if they'd change that into the horrible WoW-like healers. Healing in GW1 required a lot of skill and you could easily distinguish good monks from just average monks, especially in PvP.
If you want to get really fancy you throw in a regeneration heal in there too.
The holy trinity is inherently flawed because if that healer or tank or whatever is not there, or your friend doesn't want to play that role, you can't do anything. If your guilds main tank is off on his Birthday, or is physically unable to play or whatever -- you can't do that raid anymore without him. It puts too much reliance on too few people. By removing it, it puts equal responsibility on everyone.
But the tank/damage/heal system is also making every single person of the team important. If everyone can do everything, why have different classes at all if you can replace anyone?
Also, having big differences between classes adds a lot to the PvP combat, which is imho most fun in GW1. Keeping a team alive for a minute 5v8 while your secondary monk and two others are split off and before the opponent sent a group back was always the most exciting moment in any GvG which required perfect teamwork and interaction between every class. The "make everyone equal" mentality seems to water this down a lot...
No everyone isn't important for the most part. There are 100 DPS and 50 tanks (half of which are DPS geared/specced) for every healer. It sucks to play a DPS class in most MMOs because you can never find a PUG and it's REALLY hard to get into a guild as a DPS class since they already have a million of them, they just want healers/support and sometimes a tank or two.
That said I really like playing support classes that severely lacks offensive capability and have a lot of fun support mechanics.
When it comes to the "everyone equal" part, I don't mind. Chess have very few variables, Go have only one type of piece. It's how you use them that matters if game mechanics are well designed.
On June 27 2011 23:06 Morfildur wrote: But the tank/damage/heal system is also making every single person of the team important. If everyone can do everything, why have different classes at all if you can replace anyone?
Everyone being able to do everything doesn't mean everyone can at once be able to do everything or that everyone does everything equally well. And there are synergies between professions that can be exploited in well-organized groups. The idea is that everyone is important because everyone is helping out. Can people be replaced? In dynamic events (which are the vast majority of PvE), probably, yeah. But I don't think that's a bad thing. (As a comparison: In City of Heroes, most of the time most people on a team can be replaced. But that doesn't ruin the game. Indeed, it makes it more fun for a lot of people, since you can more or less play what you want and still do fine. Obviously, GW2 should be much better than CoH in a lot of ways, but that still stands out as a point of similarity.)
Another comparison: In Guild Wars, monk, nec, rit, ele, and para primaries can all, in a pinch, do heals or prots well enough for most PvE. Just gotta entirely change your bar (and possibly your secondary). In GW2 there aren't any secondaries, but there are still tons of choices for your bar, and the idea is that you can change that up on the fly if, for instance, you end up on a dungeon pug with 3 warriors on it. Have them take a bunch of support skills and you're looking good.
Now, for dungeons and 5v5 PvP, I would be shocked if we didn't see optimized 5-person team builds cropping up as soon as we get to a relatively large and open beta. Again, there are synergies to exploit, and there's bar compression, and all that jazz. For 5v5 PvP, of course the best builds will rise to the top. For dungeons, of course the best builds will be the ones that end up basically speedrunning it. But most people aren't looking to speedrun anything, and don't mind if they die a little, and for them, being able to turn from spitting out lots of damage to primarily being support (and being able to bring a skill that will work better based on the other people in the group) makes finding groups and finishing content easier.
Edit: And of course, in PvP, it doesn't really matter if everyone could in principle be replaced, because success really should depend on organization and coordination as much as the five bars.
Wow...all this new GW stuff comin up kinda makes me wanna play again.....and i feel like i only touched the surface of GW.I Only played through Factions and Nightfall,with 2 different Chars.I Think im gonna play the shit out of this game until I get all HoM Rewars (anybody an ETA?:D)
On June 27 2011 01:43 UdderChaos wrote: How complex will the fighting in this be? I raided and pvp'd in wow from vanilla to just before wotlk came out and i cant really see how having such a limited amount of skills can create any sort of skill level, especially as the other people in this thread saying they took out some of the mechanincs from GW1 from what we understand, although i only played GW1 a bit. Can anyone re-assure me? Becuase as a student the lack of a monthly fee is very appealing, plus the development team being a lot of the old blizzard folks and world of war craft going down the pan from a hardcore gamers perspective anyways.
Afaik it's possible to swap weapons in battle, therefore you're constantly swapping between the first 5 skills you get out of your weapons. Also I'm pretty sure that it's possible to dodge attacks, and perhaps you have to be able to aim attacks too? There will also be a lot of cross-class skill combinations, which will be interesting to see how it will turn out in both pvp and pve. It's hard to tell because of the lack of any dedicated healing/tanking classes (afaik) how pvp/pve will turn out, but I can see it working. Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be Build Wars ^.^.
I don't think Build Wars is necessarily a bad thing, in today's world, gamers like choice, they like variety. Having every "xx" class use the same build is bland.
Would you not like the freedom to customize your character to your own tastes and builds, rather than the "popular" consensus?
Well obviously variety is good, but from what I heard modern GW1 turned into rock paper scissors based on build picking, although I highly doubt GW2 would ever turn out like that, just because of the variability added by weapon swapping, and lack of healers (in the sense of what monks were in GW1).
I didn't follow GW2 development that much, so i probably missed some big announcement: What did you mean with lack of healers? Did they remove/change monks a lot?
I really liked the monks and the heal-system in GW1 and would really hate it if they'd change that into the horrible WoW-like healers. Healing in GW1 required a lot of skill and you could easily distinguish good monks from just average monks, especially in PvP.
If you want to get really fancy you throw in a regeneration heal in there too.
a) you clearly never played wow at a decent level, b) you picked the wrong class, c) you probably also played the later expansions which dumbed the game down.
On June 27 2011 22:16 Fruscainte wrote: The holy trinity is inherently flawed because if that healer or tank or whatever is not there, or your friend doesn't want to play that role, you can't do anything. If your guilds main tank is off on his Birthday, or is physically unable to play or whatever -- you can't do that raid anymore without him. It puts too much reliance on too few people. By removing it, it puts equal responsibility on everyone.
Yes but then its not a team game is it? If everyone is playing a part in tanking/healing/dpsing then there is less of a team aspect, sure abilities can have synergies but at the end of the day your removing the layer of teamwork. A tank cannot tank on his own, his health bar is largely held up by the healers in his raid. The dpsers are, or at least used to be, in the hands of the tanks ability to maintain threat to allow them to dps ect ect. Having different roles makes the game more diverse, the classes more diverse, the tactics more in depth and the teamwork more layered. Taking that away just is stupid. Basically rather than having a complete reliance on your teammates to allow you to do your job, instead each player is battling against themselves to produce the best individual performance, and teamwork is just down to surrounding yourself with other players with equal/higher ability, I mean wtf is that?
I know I'm repeating myself, but I don't think it's getting through: There are still different things to do in combat. Each profession is capable of doing more than one of those things, but not necessarily equally well, and not necessarily at the same time. There are still heals and buffs and debuffs, and you can still build to be able to do them more or less effectively, and some professions are still better at them than others.
Being able to contribute equally to a fight does not mean that everyone is doing everything that matters in the fight in equal parts. The goal is to allow people to take on different roles as required (and since you still can't completely change your bar in the middle of combat, you are still benefited by planning ahead), but that doesn't mean that everyone will be making the exact same contributions to every fight. (That would be one way to do it, and you're right that it would be a shitty way. But since it is not the only theoretically possible way, I think it's too early to worry as much as you are suggesting we should.)
Will the combat system be tactically deep enough to be fun and interesting? We don't know yet. But we certainly don't have a guarantee that it won't be just because the game does not include a dedicated tank and healing profession. (Again, City of Heroes might be worth looking at, at least on the healing side of things, because it's a game where making red (green) bars go up is the worst form of support.)
On June 28 2011 03:05 Pyrthas wrote: I know I'm repeating myself, but I don't think it's getting through: There are still different things to do in combat. Each profession is capable of doing more than one of those things, but not necessarily equally well, and not necessarily at the same time. There are still heals and buffs and debuffs, and you can still build to be able to do them more or less effectively, and some professions are still better at them than others.
Being able to contribute equally to a fight does not mean that everyone is doing everything that matters in the fight in equal parts. The goal is to allow people to take on different roles as required (and since you still can't completely change your bar in the middle of combat, you are still benefited by planning ahead), but that doesn't mean that everyone will be making the exact same contributions to every fight. (That would be one way to do it, and you're right that it would be a shitty way. But since it is not the only theoretically possible way, I think it's too early to worry as much as you are suggesting we should.)
Will the combat system be tactically deep enough to be fun and interesting? We don't know yet. But we certainly don't have a guarantee that it won't be just because the game does not include a dedicated tank and healing profession. (Again, City of Heroes might be worth looking at, at least on the healing side of things, because it's a game where making red (green) bars go up is the worst form of support.)
Yeah i guess, im just wondering where they are going with this game, with all the random elements (like the guardians one block every 30 seconds crap) it seems like they are steering away from competitive and deep combat.
And yeah COH was a lot of fun, the game itself was terrible as a complete picture but some of the ideas/innovations were very cool. Most importantly the whole idea of having characters that were almost soley dedicated to debuffs is something that a lot of other mmos have missed and also the sidekick system was very cool.
Yeah, I'm still really curious how it will turn out, too. I mean, I said I don't think we have good reason to think that your worries about it being super boring will turn out right, but I also don't think we have any guarantee that they're wrong. And at least for dungeons and 5v5, I think deep and interesting combat are pretty important.
On June 28 2011 04:07 Pyrthas wrote: Yeah, I'm still really curious how it will turn out, too. I mean, I said I don't think we have good reason to think that your worries about it being super boring will turn out right, but I also don't think we have any guarantee that they're wrong. And at least for dungeons and 5v5, I think deep and interesting combat are pretty important.
As with any game i waited very long for, i will probably be very disappointed and stop playing it. 5v5 combat is already too small-scale for me (8v8 GvGs were ok, but i would have preferred 10v10 as it would have allowed a lot more splitting strategies).
I think the only game in the last 2-3 years that i waited for and that didn't disappoint me was SC2. Especially MMOs turned out to be extremely bad, SW:TOR and GW2 are my last hopes.
On June 28 2011 04:07 Pyrthas wrote: Yeah, I'm still really curious how it will turn out, too. I mean, I said I don't think we have good reason to think that your worries about it being super boring will turn out right, but I also don't think we have any guarantee that they're wrong. And at least for dungeons and 5v5, I think deep and interesting combat are pretty important.
As with any game i waited very long for, i will probably be very disappointed and stop playing it. 5v5 combat is already too small-scale for me (8v8 GvGs were ok, but i would have preferred 10v10 as it would have allowed a lot more splitting strategies).
I think the only game in the last 2-3 years that i waited for and that didn't disappoint me was SC2. Especially MMOs turned out to be extremely bad, SW:TOR and GW2 are my last hopes.
I think im in the same boat about GW2 being my last hope, star wars has already failed my level of required quality.
Im optimistic though. I really do think GW2 will be going places.
Yeah, I'm optimistic, too. I kind of doubt that it'll be fantastic, because few things are, but I'm still hopeful that it'll be good, solid fun, with decent promise for the future.
On June 27 2011 01:43 UdderChaos wrote: How complex will the fighting in this be? I raided and pvp'd in wow from vanilla to just before wotlk came out and i cant really see how having such a limited amount of skills can create any sort of skill level, especially as the other people in this thread saying they took out some of the mechanincs from GW1 from what we understand, although i only played GW1 a bit. Can anyone re-assure me? Becuase as a student the lack of a monthly fee is very appealing, plus the development team being a lot of the old blizzard folks and world of war craft going down the pan from a hardcore gamers perspective anyways.
Afaik it's possible to swap weapons in battle, therefore you're constantly swapping between the first 5 skills you get out of your weapons. Also I'm pretty sure that it's possible to dodge attacks, and perhaps you have to be able to aim attacks too? There will also be a lot of cross-class skill combinations, which will be interesting to see how it will turn out in both pvp and pve. It's hard to tell because of the lack of any dedicated healing/tanking classes (afaik) how pvp/pve will turn out, but I can see it working. Hopefully it doesn't turn out to be Build Wars ^.^.
I don't think Build Wars is necessarily a bad thing, in today's world, gamers like choice, they like variety. Having every "xx" class use the same build is bland.
Would you not like the freedom to customize your character to your own tastes and builds, rather than the "popular" consensus?
Well obviously variety is good, but from what I heard modern GW1 turned into rock paper scissors based on build picking, although I highly doubt GW2 would ever turn out like that, just because of the variability added by weapon swapping, and lack of healers (in the sense of what monks were in GW1).
I didn't follow GW2 development that much, so i probably missed some big announcement: What did you mean with lack of healers? Did they remove/change monks a lot?
I really liked the monks and the heal-system in GW1 and would really hate it if they'd change that into the horrible WoW-like healers. Healing in GW1 required a lot of skill and you could easily distinguish good monks from just average monks, especially in PvP.
If you want to get really fancy you throw in a regeneration heal in there too.
a) you clearly never played wow at a decent level, b) you picked the wrong class, c) you probably also played the later expansions which dumbed the game down.
Way to have one of the biggest and most obvious jokes ever fly right over your head. ;-;
I know I'm a little late to the discussion but I wanted to throw in Tabula Rasa for biggest MMO flop ever I was very hype for that game, quit it almost immediately at launch and then it closed down in about 15 months.
Well, I played GW for about 4 years, and after that, I felt like I got bored of all MMORPGs (exception is Diablo 3, I have been waiting for this shit like forever) and I didn't even think about buying GW2, till I saw this video today:
This actually changed my mind, and I think I'm going to try GW2
On June 28 2011 09:06 Huragius wrote: Well, I played GW for about 4 years, and after that, I felt like I got bored of all MMORPGs (exception is Diablo 3, I have been waiting for this shit like forever) and I didn't even think about buying GW2, till I saw this video today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBC_ig73aMs This actually changed my mind, and I think I'm going to try GW2
I'm glad that dude agrees with one of my biggest peeves with what they did to WoW way back in the day. Flying RUINS a game. Totally destroys the sense of scale or feeling in a game, and (at least in a game like wow) 100% ruins open world PvP.
On June 28 2011 09:06 Huragius wrote: Well, I played GW for about 4 years, and after that, I felt like I got bored of all MMORPGs (exception is Diablo 3, I have been waiting for this shit like forever) and I didn't even think about buying GW2, till I saw this video today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBC_ig73aMs This actually changed my mind, and I think I'm going to try GW2
We posted that video a few weeks ago Check page 50ish.
In either case it highlights a lot of good things.
On June 28 2011 04:07 Pyrthas wrote: Yeah, I'm still really curious how it will turn out, too. I mean, I said I don't think we have good reason to think that your worries about it being super boring will turn out right, but I also don't think we have any guarantee that they're wrong. And at least for dungeons and 5v5, I think deep and interesting combat are pretty important.
As with any game i waited very long for, i will probably be very disappointed and stop playing it. 5v5 combat is already too small-scale for me (8v8 GvGs were ok, but i would have preferred 10v10 as it would have allowed a lot more splitting strategies).
I think the only game in the last 2-3 years that i waited for and that didn't disappoint me was SC2. Especially MMOs turned out to be extremely bad, SW:TOR and GW2 are my last hopes.
How were split strategies not prevalent enough in the game? How are they not still. If you'd kept the map sizes the same but added more people, all you'd have done would be to make splitting a lot more dangerous and unforgiving for both sides, which in tournament play is something most people tend to steer clear off, thus reducing its viability in higher level play.
EPT
WTF
I was very hype for that game, quit it almost immediately at launch and then it closed down in about 15 months.
