Guild Wars 2

Discussion in 'MMO Design and Virtual Worlds' started by -Y-, Apr 29, 2010.

  1. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    So this is begging to be posted. The new Guild wars manifesto was up. Link.

    There was also talks of dynamic quests.
    In addition there was some talk about new fight mechanics and the new Elementalist.

    I'm especially happy about the Elementalist preview. That is what an elementalist or any mage should be about. Making deadly fireworks. Phoenix spell feels like a pheonix spell and effects themselves display their range.

    So I'm happy :) What's your opinion?
     
  2. sage

    sage Well-Known Member

    I played GW as a 'trial' for a while as a friend of my brother's got an account but his computer was down so he lent it to us.

    That first part, I definitely experienced. You could play with friends, or with random people, or you could hire npc aids if your build just couldn't solo. The different classes were fun, lots of fireworks and combos.

    Also, to level up to 20 was very short and it was all just unlocking new abilities to sidegrade your build.
    Didn't play long enough to comment on gear.

    If they recapture that dynamic for GW2, good for them. GW was always the mmo I would play, if I played mmos at all.
     
  3. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    GW was the MMO I did play when I played MMOs at all, and I had a multitude of good things to say about it, so I'm looking forward to GW2. That conjure thing looks neat. I was always playing elementalists, necromancers, mesmers and paragons in PvE (and PvP except for paragons because they were designed badly.) I enjoyed playing the supporting-role-but-not-complete-healbitch position, so improvement on that sounds fun.
     
  4. MajinSweet

    MajinSweet Well-Known Member

    Hopefully balance goes smoother this time. One of the best things about GW was how many possible ways you could build a character. A lot of times someone would find some crazy specialized build that could solo areas of the game meant for a full party of 8 (FUN!) but, then they would make a patch just to try and stop that build/make it less practical/change how the skills work (NOT FUN).
     
  5. LoneKnight

    LoneKnight Well-Known Member

    Can I have a male mesmer that doesn't run like a fruity faggot this time?

    I mean, the masks are pimpin but... oh god that animation.

    Anyway, yeah, I played GW for the full extent of about 10 minutes... this looks quite promising though.

    EDIT: did I say promising? I meant awesome. They really need a "hit during death animation" animation though.
     
  6. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    If I remember correctly there won't be mesmer in the game, which as a mesmer player saddens me. On the other hand, Elementalist was my primary char and they decided to turn them up to eleven (Oh god, thank you for the pheonix, now I know you exist) and as they said made them more visceral. The simplicity and the mechanics of Fire wall surprise me (from what I can tell it is a wall that deals damage over time to unit that pass through and gives allied projectile that pass through it a firey effect in other words burning arrows for anyone).
     
  7. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I really enjoyed parts of the first GW I played, but the full game never gripped me enough to get through it.

    Anyways 100% xp share is pretty cool. What about loot though? Have they said how they're handling loot when multiple people take down a mob?
     
  8. LoneKnight

    LoneKnight Well-Known Member

    I was kind of afraid of that.. the class appealed to me ("hidden influence", yay!), but since having easy to recognize moves and such is their design goal, someone who manipulates status effects (and does that in a kind of plain way) doesn't really fit. Ah well. Still looking good.
     
  9. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing the boss or the enemy will spawn loot for each player. IMO it'll be like GW1 where items dropped can only be picked up by a given player.
     
  10. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    It's kind of funny that the MMO with no subscription fee promotes socializing outside of your social circle more than many MMOs *cough WoW* that charge a subscription fee to support large scale open worlds.
     
  11. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    The whole supporting open worlds is also non-sensical from a commercial PoV. My guess is that they're a new firm and they need the promotion; There is nothing wrong with promotion and establishing a strong following, I just hope when they become big they won't forget about the players. Besides socializing is all the rave (WoW will catch on eventually in WoW: the 100th expansion pack). So far Arena Net is yet to disappoint me :)
     
  12. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I don't really follow the middle part of your statement but Arena Net does rock so yay.
     
  13. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    I need to learn to express myself more clearly. Ok, so what I tried to say is this:

    They are building a community that likes Arena Net games. I hope they won't (at a later point) try to alienate that community for money.
     
  14. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I see your point and agree with it! Also I think it was a typo, not poor composition:

    "I just hope when they become big they forget about the players"
     
  15. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Upps. Anyway having fixed that. Here is the thing... I've heard there would be some even more interesting uses for the magic

    How am I supposed to guess and know what combo developers had in mind when making a spell? Will Wall of Fire melt ice projectiles of my foes? Or my allies? Will it set the trees a flame?

    This is a thing that bothers me a bit, but I hope they can make it work out for em.
     
  16. LoneKnight

    LoneKnight Well-Known Member

    I think it's safe to assume that they put descriptors like "flammable", "conductive" etc... on attacks and then let you figure out the rest. Maybe. Maybe you just have to use your "epic logic" sense.
     
  17. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member

    They've mentioned that the goal is to make it more logical than GW1. One of the chief complaints about GW1 was that there were so many bells and whistles that it was often difficult to tell what the heck was going on and how abilities interacted. GW2 aims to make everything more visually salient and straight forward. So in the above example, static field charges everything which goes through it, not just bullets, and cyclone axe pushes back everything, not just fire walls, but bullets and walls behave like they should.
     
  18. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    My main fears wrt this game are:
    1. Level cap will turn out to be a disaster.
    2. Lack of heroes/adequate henchmen (this really saved GW PvE)
    3. They won't be able to restrain themselves from adding all the grind they managed to avoid in the original game.

    They're going the right direction in some places, and I guess I can tolerate the gorilla cats/house elves all over the place where before it was just humans with some really nice variety, but the above are all still kind of worrying.
     
  19. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I give the design statement an A+, but then I gave the Guild Wars 1 design statements and A+ also, but the game itself...significantly less. Here are things I wonder.

    • Will it run on Mac?
    • If I turn off click-to-move, will click-to-move still happen in some cases, like in GW1?
    • Can I hold left mouse button and drag to rotate camera and NOT character? (Allowing looking while running, but not changing direction of the run.)
    • Can I hold right mouse button and drag to rotate camera+character? (Allowing steering the character as he runs.)
    • If I right click on someone, can I get some actual options this time?
    • Is it still basically team vs team only, or is there some focus on 1on1 being a real thing?
    • Will male characters all look effeminate like in GW1?

    I expect to be disappointed on every single count there, but like I said, I give the manifesto an A+ anyway. It would be cool to do some consulting on combat or something with them.
     
  20. icewolf34

    icewolf34 Well-Known Member

    Click-to-move and run-to-cast are seriously so bad, especially in a game where you clip on opponents and random terrain obstacles. Kind of hard for me to see how they thought it was okay to release that way. It kind of makes me doubt whether they are capable of designing a good interface at all, even though I think they are 100% spot-on on all of the big-picture questions (low level cap, CCG-like ability choices, easy to form groups and get to instances).

    To be fair though, I think those things are more of a problem in PvE, where the environment is more irregular and the enemies more numerous. Maybe Guild Wars is really a PvP game, so who cares about terrible interface for PvE or something? Also, probably my experience was a lot worse because laggy connections make run-to-cast 4x worse than it already is.

    Anyways, I will most likely buy GW2 anyways? The ideas are just so good, especially the limited ability bar.
     
  21. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Humans probably. Charr, not so much.
     
  22. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member

    Compress!

    1-5. Moar like wow's basic functionality plz. Mac+customizable interface ffs.
    6. 1v1*
    7. Joke.

    *The other points are obvious improvements, but #6 seemed a little off to me. GW has a pretty vibrant 1v1 competitive community and dedicated GW 1v1 game mode: Hero Battles. Hero battles are 1v1 matches where players and henchmen square off. Maps have several capturable objectives which give points per minute, as well as various buffs if you grab them. Points can also be scored by kills, though all characters respawn after a few seconds. To me, hero battles are hands down GW's best game mode, and the interface even starts to make sense since controlling 3heroes makes the RTS-y controls seem a little more appropriate. Hero battles also have a built in ladder system and monthly tournaments a finals of which I have linked below.

    GW video links are like magic decklists! nearly useless!

    If Sirlin (and others) haven't heard of hero battles, that makes sense to me, but if they have, I'd like to hear their objections to them.
     
  23. Warskull

    Warskull Active Member

    Hero battles were a joke of a format and everyone knew it. Herding dumb AI isn't interesting or fun.

    As for a true 1v1, I doubt that will exist. In GW1 it would degenerate pretty quickly and encourage defensive build standoffs. Additionally, the fight would be determined by class and build before it even started most of the time. Since there will likely be a focus on team battles for PvP, I doubt 1v1 would be remotely balanced or interesting in GW2.
     
  24. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I don't really know anything about these Hero Battles, so no clue on that. Just that when GW1 released, there was no 1v1.

    Anyway, I think designing such a game as team vs team is just bad. You can design it 1v1 AND have team vs team work fine. If you design team vs team to start, then 1v1 can't work. Sure they could do it that way and not have 1v1, but...for hardly any cost but a shift in design thinking, it could have both. I'd certainly do it that way if I made a battlegrounds game.

    I don't know anything about GW2 other than the link in the original post. I was just guessing that it would be designed around team v team with no chance of 1v1 working, which seems like a waste. That said, I can just barely imagine 1v1 where each person also semi-controls some other characters to have the various roles covered. I guess that's what Hero Battles is. Again, I couldn't tell you if it worked out great or terrible, but I could at least imagine that working pretty well.
     
  25. icewolf34

    icewolf34 Well-Known Member

    Can you give some examples of games that were designed that way, Sirlin? Off the top of my head, some 'arena' type games are: TF2, DotA (and other AoS games), Guild Wars, WoW. I'm not sure if WoW was meant to be balanced for 1v1, but the other ones definitely were not.
     
  26. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I think the easy answer is none. I think the people who make team games don't even think about how they could 1on1+team instead of team-only. WoW is the ultimate example of designed for group and NOT 1on1. They said so many times.

    Guilty Gear Isuka, though a terrible game for reasons unrelated to this, is kind of a glimpse though. It does not use the classic (bad) "parts of a machine" design. That's where your "machine" is a tank/healer/dps or whatever so you can't play 1on1. Each character is a full machine in GGXX, so playing 2on2 just means each team has two machines instead of parts that add up to one.

    I guess Starcraft is a good example actually. Each player has a whole "machine" (his race), it works 1on1, and it also works as a team vs team game if you want.
     
  27. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member

    I think the "machine/parts" model is a good way to talk about this. GW classes are "parts" but because characters have two classes, it's usually possible for a single character to be a full "machine." The problem was that the game included a large number different classes of abilities and it was impossible to simultaneously prepare for all of these. One memorable one was the knockdown monk/assassin who could teleport in from max spell range and then permanently keep their target on the floor. There were abilities which made you immune to KD of course, but if you didn't happen to bring them, well, you were going to lose that fight.

    This is why it's difficult to design a game for both teams and 1v1. Teams enjoy a diversity of options, 1v1s need to have some constraints (eg. no air fireballs!) that everyone respects. Hero Battles kind of cut the knot on this because they gave a single player 4 characters to work with, and you could reasonably cover all the bases with 4 characters. Warskull is right that the serious guilds laughed at HB, but that was because they were going to laugh at anything but 8v8 team battles. They didn't want 1v1 in any form. I don't really see how "The team based PVPers didn't like the 1v1 format" is really an argument that translates into "the 1v1 format wasbad."
     
  28. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I don't really see the opposite being completely true either. To work for 1v1 every player's choice in race, class, or character has to have independence. What ends up happening then is that teamwork is needed only because it's required mathematically.

    In a game like Starcraft each army is generally self sufficient. There are a few synergies you take advantage of, but those are bonuses rather than punishments. Complimentary unit choices aren't steadfast and they don't really require intricate coordination. It's generally more along the lines of, "you target unit X and I'll target unit Y, for positioning stay behind my guys because they're better meatshields."

    Meanwhile games like DotA are rife with intricate and nuanced player interactions. Characters need to fill specific roles to cover each other's weaknesses and complete a specified goal. If each player is independent then it's just not going to happen on the same level. A big part of what makes teamwork so fun in these games is the concept that the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. When you have a team game that doesn't reinforce this then the team play just doesn't feel as compelling.

    Having player roles that are dependent on other players in a team based game is something that's desirable. It's fun and it makes team interaction more interesting. It's also something that will inevitably break 1v1 interaction.

    Even beyond player asymmetry a game can demand teamplay in other ways that cause it to break down in 1v1. Counter-strike is a perfect example of this. The nature of how CS is balanced causes it to really only be compelling in a team setting even though each player is relatively independent. In games like this solo play can still be fun, but it will never be competitive.

    You can have 1v1s be fun in a team based game (see WoW duels or a Team fortress 2 death match mode) and team play fun in a 1v1 game (see something like Smash Brothers 2v2). In both cases you don't hit the same strong competitive level for the game type you didn't balance around. I think it's just an inevitable result of what makes each game type fun.

    You can definitely go too far. Too much interdependence can really break the feeling of personal improvement or possibility of doing anything alone. Likewise too much independence can make group based play feel stale and meaningless.
     
  29. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I disagree Logo, and this has been discussed a lot before on these forums. "Parts of a machine" design has only the illusion of more teamwork, but actually has less teamwork. It has this artificial kind of teamwork where you are forced into just your role, and you can't really do anything if one of your parts is disabled, killed, or controlled by a bad player (or good player who is messing up).

    Meanwhile, there is NO shortage of teamwork in team-starcraft or in Counter-Strike. There are no artificial roles. If a teammate is having trouble, you can adapt to take on whatever strategic role he was trying, probably. In Counter-Strike, you definitely can, as PoisonDagger explained in depth before.

    You talk about few synergies as if that's bad. That's generally good though. Having specific synergies is like having a bunch of bonus for Elves in MTG...it means you are kind of forced into making an Elf deck instead of doing creative stuff. If you have a whole machine and so do I, and we aren't forced to tactic X and Y only because of some synergy, then we have the entire huge world of interactions at our fingertips. The difference in our team-effectiveness by playing cooperatively vs ignoring each other is huuuge. We can coordinate when we attack, where we attack, whether we play to maximize the damage we can do, or minimize the risk of incoming damage, whether we split up scouting, or whether one spends more time on that and the other on some other activity, and so on.

    As another example, think about PvE in WoW or something, a very rigid parts-of-machine design. You can be the best DPS guy ever, and if the tank dies, you lose. You can't cover for him or shift your strategy really, not anywhere near how much you could in a game where each player has an entire machine. You get MORE team-work in that case, not less. Compare the WoW example to Diablo2, a rare semi-rpg where you pretty much have the whole machine. You can shift roles in that game, there's no such thing as "the healer died, so we are all dead for sure." You can adapt and react to what each other player is doing instead of do your pre-defined WoW-tank script or whatever.

    Your point about Counter-Strike is neither here nor there. A team-based objective doens't work that well for 1on1, sure, but the point is that parts-of-a-machine design makes 1on1 infeasible and makes teamwork worse, not better, in a team game. WoW 1on1 suffered for ever (and I imagine still does) for this exact parts-of-a-machine reason. If you're a healer, you just aren't suited to beat a rogue, for example. This is not news, and Pardo himself said this many times. So it's taken years and years to iron out because they didn't design the game with 1on1 in mind from the start (and they should have...so that 1on1 isn't so garbage or near-impossible to fix).

    Anyway this was discussed to death before and the verdict already came in: parts of a machine is bad. A crutch when you feel like having no 1on1 when you *could have* and a way to ensure forced-cooperation instead at the expense of worse actual teamwork than if you did it the Counter-Strike / Starcraft / Diablo2 way.

    Just to rehash the old threads even more, I'll counter another argument I'm sure is coming. "But there isn't as much diversity if we all have an entire machine." False. The fighting game with the most diversity ever is probably Guilty Gear, but each player still has a complete machine. So if you could play 2on2 Guilty Gear (in a non-terrible way, Isuku messed up) then it would allow for MORE creativity and teamwork than if you modified the characters (dumbed down?) to be only part of a machine.
     
  30. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    Isn't that glossing over examples of team interdependency that don't suck?

    Take Team Fortress 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, or League of Legends (I use LoL instead of DotA due to the balance of carries in DotA).

    In all the games you end up more like Voltron than simple parts, each part alone is very powerful and combined they're greater than the sum of the parts. You depend on your initiation in Lol, but you aren't tied to it. Other characters can initiate in a pinch and clever adapting can bring you team out ahead. Likewise in Team fortress 2 each class is quite capable 1v1. Even the medic can kill with the needle gun (I used to do it all the time). Yeah there is still tons of interdependency built in. You want your medics and engineers to be supporting your soldiers and demos, not picking fights alone.

    I agree with the basic premise that too much interdependency sucks, it's precisely what's wrong with a lot of team based games that have launched in the past year or 2. I just don't buy that ALL interdependency is bad or that designing for team play means that 1v1 is going to suck; At the very least that statement is just as valid in reverse.

    Edit....

    I think a big problem with interdependency is that it almost always rears its head as taking away options. Of course taking away options and dumbing down the individual player is going to suck. That's why games like TF2 and BFBC2 actually work (well you could argue BFBC2 fails for other reasons), players don't feel like they're restricted. Instead players have the capabilities they expect PLUS some extra capabilities that makes their team reliant on other team members.
     
  31. PoisonDagger

    PoisonDagger Active Member

    Logo, you have clearly not played CS 1v1 on an aim_ (objectiveless) map. I've played in a few "for fun" 1v1 aim_ map tournaments, and it was quite compelling. And it works because your teammates in CS are there for the numbers, not for doing the job that one man should be able to do himself.

    You don't need to design specific teamwork mechanics in a game for it to work with teams. Left 4 Dead has several teamwork-specific mechanics, and it makes you work with your team. Some old co-op shooters (Doom, Serious Sam) have zero teamwork mechanics, yet everyone works together to protect each other during mob rushes, and focus fire boss monsters before they deal too much damage, etc. Players often find their team's role on-the-fly, situation-by-situation. A boss will spawn along with a horde of weaker enemies. Players will focus on either the enemies or the boss, and good decision-makers will switch their role depending on the flow of the battle. In a giant mob battle, some players will take to the defensive when being chased, and the ones not being pursued will try to protect their teammates. Situations like these ebb and flow constantly, forcing players to be aware of the situation and change their role as necessary.

    Back when we discussed this topic to death (parts-of-a-machine team design vs good team design), I think I was one of the few who took a cold hard stance on good team design. Whether it be co-op or multiplayer, competitive or just for fun, games without discretely segregated roles between players just seem more fun. You always have a chance of winning even when outnumbered since you don't need your teammates around for an attack to work. You end up with more dynamic, *real* teamwork and less forced teamwork designed to only allow players to play one way that makes them feel like they're working together, when they're really just cogs in a machine.
     
  32. icewolf34

    icewolf34 Well-Known Member

    Maybe the difference is that in some games, roles develop on the fly instead of being picked out ahead of time. I mean, if I have 20% HP, and one of my teammates just found a chainsaw and some body armor, I am going to let him tank. I think 'no one has done this correctly yet' might be a good answer. Left for Dead, hmm maybe, it seemed promising when I played it but I haven't logged enough hours to say definitively.

    I really do feel like I am part of a team in TF2, much more than I do in CS. (I mean, seems totally feasible in CS just to have everyone buy AKs and shoot from the same range, and you won't be at much of a disadvantage vs. some team with diverse roles and weapons.) Same with Guild Wars vs. Diablo 2, like in D2 it's feasible to just split up to explore the map faster; in Guild Wars you will just die.

    Would be interested in reading the previous discussion on this, I must have missed it somehow.
     
  33. sage

    sage Well-Known Member

    TF2 has loose parts-in-a-machine design and seems to pull it off. I certainly enjoy it more than L4D.
    Maybe one of the things is that you can switch class midgame? You're expected to die as part of the planned gameflow and each life you can pick a new class to adapt, and even in one life most of the roles can adapt on the fly, some of the most exciting moments are when an Engineer abandons his post to melee a medic down, and the general scramble to secure a control point where any concerns about proper positioning and role come second to having bodies on a point, and most of the damage classes play offence and defence (both point defence and medic defence).

    Compared to Dota/hon, your choice of class is fixed at the start of game, and you can adjust your role slightly by items, eg Slardar/Pestilence can build magic immunity and damage/armour piercing or just buff his hp and buy Blink. However, the way the game is balanced over the years, almost all heroes have picked up a specialization and been balanced around that, possibly because that's easier to balance, though it may be a shallow peak in terms of exciting gameplay.
    This may also be why LoL takes a different path with having everything scale.
     
  34. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I've played plenty of CS aim maps. While they're fun, I wouldn't really want to try and make it a competitive effort.

    I completely agree it's not a requirement, it'd be absurd to think so given CS, Halo, L4D, etc. I just think there's room for those types of games. Just as it'd be absurd to ignore games like Halo, L4D, and CS it's absurd to ignore the success of games like DotA, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield, and so on.

    The points also seem wonky to me, even though I agree with the premise to a good extent. Statements like, "You always have a chance of winning even when outnumbered since you don't need your teammates around for an attack to work." aren't really related to the style of team design. Age of Conan (fairly standard MMORPG fair with more dynamic combat) allowed for small numbers to win battles over much more numerous foes. Meanwhile games like Starcraft are very difficult to win without your teammates without vast differences in player skill. It's hypothetically possible, but it's pretty unlikely. I see where you are going with it, I know a lot of team based games that severely punish outnumbered players regardless of skill, but it's something that comes about more through over application of interdependency than having any interdependency itself.
     
  35. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    My problem with doing the "whole machine" style is that it seems to allow for all events to be solo-able, given perfect play. I think D2 is a good example... if you perfectly kite around the bosses and stuff, I can't think of a situation where multiple players could be used, but one player wouldn't suffice.

    That situation seems like it would lower teamwork... the best players will just realize they can get by on their own, so they can safely ignore the others, and execute the "best" strategy, and everyone else is just standing around to maybe speed things up.

    Given that type of situation, there's something to be said for WoW design, where they at least made sure that multiple players all had to be executing their seperate "best" strategies concurrently during team fights. They took it a bit far when designing things like Archimonde (obligatory fist shake >.>). But, I think there's overall a benefit there.

    Of course, I will point out that I would say in team PvP, the "whole machine" system is probably better. I'm mostly complaining about PvE/co-op stuff.
     
  36. PoisonDagger

    PoisonDagger Active Member

    My point was that CS is balanced for any number of players on the team as long as the map is reasonably sized for the player count. In CS, a 1v1 encounter is deep enough that it's reasonably fun to play the game in a 1v1 format, yet playing on a competitive team is also incredibly deep. It's the type of thing that game designers should be striving for, but most are satisfied with a fun team game that lacks something in 1v1.

    Reading my post again, I actually brought up two separate concepts. Static vs dynamic teamwork, and forced teamwork (as in, teamwork-specific game mechanics). Most games with static teamwork also have forced teamwork, like WoW where players are forced to work together in specific ways, and working together in those ways is required to win. Left 4 Dead is an example of dynamic teamwork that's also forced, as in, there are many mechanics that only work with multiple players.

    People seem to dislike the idea of a team game without pre-prescribed ways of helping each other. I've always liked the idea of jumping into a team game that works just like a single player game, and figuring out the best way to work together from there.
     
  37. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member

    I think I'm clear now that:

    parts<machine<voltron.

    We want a game to be Voltron. Each player is a complete machine who can complete any objectives, but these players can come together into an even more powerful super machine which has greater synergies than the individual machines.

    Question: Does this mean we want to discourage, or at least disincentivize specialization and customization? The problem with GW1 was not that each character was only a part (with two classes, you could be a machine), it was that you could select powers to build a character who was a hard counter to a large number of characters. Essentially, each character was a whole starcraft race, but you could choose to build, say lurkers. If your opponent builds anything that isn't a detector, he loses. Of course you could counter with an anti air unit etc... Except that after each choice, you play a one off match and who ever chose right wins.

    It seems like GW2 is trying to combat this by introducing some serious constraints on skills. You get 10, 5 of which are determined by your weapon/wand etc, one of which has to be from the healing set, one of which has to be elite etc. So it looks like each character is being coerced to be more machine-y. Essentially everyone is going to be a Warcraft 3 unit instead of a Starcraft unit.
     
  38. LoneKnight

    LoneKnight Well-Known Member

    You can change weapons on the fly, meaning that you can swap your first 5 skills to adapt (warrior can swap bow to sword for example to switch from ranged to melee), so it's not just 5 skills but "5xnumber of weapons you use" skills. The "forced" healing skill is imo great, since it removes the need for a dedicated healer (basically, one role less). I have no idea what elite skills will be but I assume there'll be more than 1/class, so I'd not outright dismiss it.

    There may be a nice RPS in the game with the skillsets, like "he switched to Earth, but I prepared and switched to bow in advance" or something. Gotta wait and see.
     
  39. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    Possible... but I'd be afraid that people will just all write macros for weapon switches, and it more means that people have immediate access to 20+ skills on hotkeys, and so you just play with everything on, like, say, WoW.
     
  40. EvilAmoeba

    EvilAmoeba New Member

    It wouldn't be hard to prevent this. ArenaNet could implement either an animation for switching weapons that you can't interrupt, or a one-second-cooldown on all weapon abilities after switching. Most recent FPSes use a similar system.

    If there's some sort of weapon RPS, I'd love to see some mechanic for preventing a player you're fighting from switching weapons. (e.g. you take more damage if hit while in the process of swapping weapons)
     
  41. pictish

    pictish Member

    GW2 update on dynamic events and a dynamic world.

    Delivering on promises or not, holy crap is this ever a good read about how to make an MMO right.
     
  42. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    I'm a bit irritated about the neccesarry self-heal spell (what if I want more damage :( ).

    But yeah, that is how a fantasy MMO should be made. I'm a bit troubled what if you leave an orb in the middle of some forgotten cave and no one ever finds it, wouldn't that waste a perfectly good quest line. Though, I guess they can always make some kind of NPC steal it.

    I'd love to see one thing in game. Unique skills/items as in skills taught/given only to a select few. Not necessarily more powerful, just more memorable (flashy). Some kind of prestige marking that says I'm not a generic hero that has farmed destroyers for ten months (like so many others).
    For all its shit spewing cacophony, Yahtzee nailed one thing right. In MMO's you are always The One, even though you know there are a bunch of The Ones running around you doing same thing as you, getting same items/etc.
    A truly distinct set of items, skills or something memorable that would really make you stand out from the crowd would be a nice thing to have.
     
  43. Barrelfish

    Barrelfish Member

    I agree that the dynamic event stuff looks awesome. It remains to be seen how well it will be executed, but you have to give the staff credit for thinking seriously about what's good and what's bad about MMO design.

    I disagree with a mandatory heal being a bad thing. From what little we've heard so far, it sounds like combat is going to be a lot like bloodline champions with more customization and less of an emphasis on execution (although not having played either game, this is fairly speculative). It's also my impression that there won't be a dedicated healer class, or in the very least, that there won't be a mandatory healer class. So cheer up, you may lose one damage skill, but you might also not ever have to deal with begging a monk to join your party.

    Having special items/skills for every character sounds like it wouldn't go over well. From what I remember from the first GW, any time there was any sort of special or unique item, everyone who didn't get it immediately ran to the forums and complained about how unfair it was. Even if everyone gets their own special item (which sounds like a lot of work), people will still complain because they wanted the shiny blue one and got the fuzzy red one instead. I agree with the sentiment though. It's really hard to immerse yourself in the story as The One when everybody else is doing the same thing. Part of me wonders whether MMOs should even go for that track at all. I think I would prefer a game where nobody is The One, but everybody can carve out their own niche and become at least a somebody. You lose the grand and epic tales of fantasy, but haven't we all honestly become jaded by those at this point?
     
  44. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    Nope. Certainly not the target audience.
     
  45. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    Older MMOs captured this really well. There are people from Everquest and DAoC that I still remember by name even though I barely or never talked to them. I don't advocate bringing back the long grind or anything, I just think social prestige (and social interaction overall) is a great carrot on the stick that's fair for both developers and gamers. It's a hard thing to nail though. I think a big part of the fame back then was mystery. In EQ there was no real thottbot, so when a player did something or had something special it was a source of mystery that other players looked up to. In DAoC we didn't have as prolific chat communication or public message boards. Someone from another realm was only able to interact with you by killing you. The mystery around that person's personality really let you build up a legend of that person rather than them being just another Albion.

    I don't have a clue how to bring that back. Dynamic quests sure as hell seem like a good start though. With dynamic quests hopefully you'll have people coming together more to help each other complete quests, or just have their paths cross while doing quests. Even a chat like: "Hey have you seen X?" "Yeah it's over there." can go a long way to creating social ties.
     
  46. link6616

    link6616 Well-Known Member

    wow... I really like that updates ideas on the exploration side of things...

    I just hope it works well rather than feeling "Oh, village A is taken over every wednesday by X and thursday is Y, but if they were saved each day by you, they get the weekend off.'
     
  47. LoneKnight

    LoneKnight Well-Known Member

    On the forced healing skill and dmg: I'd bet large amounts of money that there will be "offensive" and "defensive" healing skills so you won't feel that you were forced to take a puny defensive option or whatever.
     
  48. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Like Sirlin said, their Manifesto is A+. Hopefully their tools can create and deploy an event in matter of days.
     
  49. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member

    Examples of some GW1 "healing" skills:

    Consume Corpse
    Spell. Teleport to a corpse's location. You gain 25...85...100 Health and 5...17...20 Energy. Exploits a fresh corpse.

    Way of Perfection
    Enchantment Spell. (60 seconds.) Your critical hits heal you for 10...34...40.

    So they're often rather diverse.

    I think the proper way to do the dynamic world thing is to set up several possible events and give them rules for interacting. In their simple "Dredge invasion" example, imagine that you actually had a simultaneous "Charr invasion" scenario. If the players beat back both, that'd be one thing. If they beat back one or the other, that'd be something else. But if both were successful, then you have Charr and Dredge fighting each other, and thats a third thing altogether. You want to let the combinatorics of the different events you set up do as much work as possible, since that way you get n! events instead of n events.
     
  50. Warskull

    Warskull Active Member

    This is why I am a big proponent of separating form and function on the items. They need to be broken down into stats and skin/model. That way you can stick your best sword stats in whatever skin you want. You avoid the situation where everyone is running around with the same sword and armor because they are the best available.

    Plus once you make the stats and skins separate entities, you open up the window for allowing players to customize their own armors and weapons.
     

Share This Page