It is going to be awesome, and I am rolling a human female Elementalist and a Male Charr Warrior the first chance I get.
That is all.
That is all.
Guild Wars 2: Opinions?
- Thread starter Korten12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let's go over some things.Emergent said:
Reducing the number of players necessary to get into the PvP scene is a good thing. Among the things that made it difficult to get into GvG and Tombs/HA in the original Guild Wars was the party size. You needed 8 people who could play a variety of classes which kept a lot of people away from PvP. The entry barrier was far too great to overcome.
The level cap being 80 doesn't matter for PvP. They're already said you can make a level 80 from the get go and your account will be fully unlocked if you just want to PvP. Haven't read anywhere about this being changed.
Removing shutdown from PvP is good. Twitch interrupts and low ping should not have played as big a role as they did. Matches would be determined by who landed a Distracting Shot on a key skill first. By the time Nightfall had been around for a while teams had to stack so much defense if they wanted to live. You had Mesmers running Glyph of Essence with Diversion because of how strong the shutdown game was.
The dedicated healer and bodyblocking is not necessarily a bad thing. The only good thing about the monk class was the existence of Protection Prayers and the concept of preventing damage rather than topping off red bars. That concept however is going to live on somewhat, not to mention the significantly greater emphasis on positioning since you can't target allies. Bodyblocking created as many problems as it caused, rubberbanding specifically when running relics and flags. Key concepts to any PvP format should be on the player's shoulders moreso than the hardware of the game.
Finally, we haven't even seen any PvP footage at all, or full skill listings, or traits, basically a ton of information that is crucial to determining how the PvP and even PvE will play out.
There are 2 places in the entire game. Urgoz's Warren and The Deep. They require 12 human players, and after Nightfall was introduced that number was reduced to 3 since each could run 3 heroes.SketchyFK said:
Completely false. 14 dungeons that were introduced in the game's only true expansion. They're really not even dungeons considering how copy pasted they are of one another anyway.
What? This is completely false. There is no open world PvP in Guild Wars since there is no open world at all. There are alliance battles that you queue for which are essentially battlegrounds in WoW. The Mists exists in Guild Wars 2 and it will be open world PvP, but there really isn't anything on that just yet.
Looks awesome but it's hard market to crack.
There's an entire audience that this game fails to reach that WoW can:
Mac users.
Also a big killer for MMOs is endgame content. Hell, the game may be great, but once you get your storm elf ninja to level 900 and there's nothing to do, you're gonna move on.
There's an entire audience that this game fails to reach that WoW can:
Mac users.
Also a big killer for MMOs is endgame content. Hell, the game may be great, but once you get your storm elf ninja to level 900 and there's nothing to do, you're gonna move on.
I?m sorry, yes the 100s was an exaggeration, but it was not completely false. WoW has 5 man dungeons, so in sense any area where 5 man teams are essential, should be considered dungeons in Guild Wars (or Missions as the game calls them). Factions had (and I may miss a few):Racthoh said:
? One at the end of the starting area
? One when you combine together with forces from the original Prophecies
? Gyala Hatchery
? Boreas Seabed
? Unwaking Waters
? The Eternal Grove
? Vizunah Square
? Amatz Basin
? Imperial Sanctum
? Tahnnakai Temple
? Fort Aspenwood
Several of these areas (if not all) have the ability to walk through without the mission. However the mission (or raid versions) give different rewards and bosses. You can use npcs for some of these missions but are less likely to succeed depending on where you go. So? where was I wrong?
Not completely false. Open world PvP HAS been suggested for being in the new Guild Wars 2. Not in the first. Opposing sided is something both wow and guild wars have. If kurzick and luxon no longer exist in the new game, then it doesn?t stop the open world pvp from existing.Racthoh said:
Guild Wars 1 doesn?t have open world pvp. Guild Wars 2 might. Just like WoW has on certain servers.
5 people are not a guild. GvG is Guild vs Guild. I don't really expect you to understand. As to the rest... well, removing everything that is recognizably Guild Wars out of GW2 PvP might make for a fun game, but it won't be GUILD WARS anymore.Racthoh said:
Looking forward to GW2. I tend to reserve judgment on games until they actually release, so I'm not really going to comment more than just that I'm looking forward to it.
I'm also pretty good friends with a number of people on the ArenaNet team through a variety of circumstances relating to the original GW.
Emergent, I'm not quite as convinced as you seem to be that they'll be removing everything which made Guild Wars what it is. I can see a number of ways they could fit most of the good original concepts into GW2 fairly seamlessly.
I'm also pretty good friends with a number of people on the ArenaNet team through a variety of circumstances relating to the original GW.
Emergent, I'm not quite as convinced as you seem to be that they'll be removing everything which made Guild Wars what it is. I can see a number of ways they could fit most of the good original concepts into GW2 fairly seamlessly.
Found something you might find interesting. Guild Mag Podcast, Feb 4 [http://www.guildmag.com/guildmag-podcast-interview-with-the-arena-net-and-the-after-party].Emergent said:
Both are worth a listen; the most interesting stuff is in the first one (which is an hour long).
Yeah, it's over 3 hours (total), but the here's the important line:
Vague? yes. Wide open for cynicism? certainly. But it's also encouraging, at least in my opinion.Jon Peters said:
The amount of ignorance in this thread is staggering. Please refrain from commenting on something you know nothing about. You just make yourself look stupid.
Anyway to remove some of the misconceptions:
There is NO open world pvp internally on a server. The only thing that comes close to it is the WvWvW where 3 servers compete in a special pvp area with pvp dynamic events etc. You cannot be ganked by anyone if you're doing pve.
We know literally nothing about organized pvp except that everything from levels and skills to armor and potions will be normalized. We also know that there will be 5v5 pvp but not if there will be ONLY 5v5 pvp. So. Dont ***** about something we know nothing about before there is at least some information out about it.
Dynamic events have nothing to do with phasing in wow. NOTHING. Phasing is the world changing for you personally and only you once you get so some predetermined place in a personal questline. If you complete that quest before your friend you'll see your friend disappear from your game world in the phased area.
Dynamic events are, however, similar to public quests and rift events in WAR and rift respectively. They're a step up from these events though, as they often chain together and does not generally reset without player interaction.
Anyway to remove some of the misconceptions:
There is NO open world pvp internally on a server. The only thing that comes close to it is the WvWvW where 3 servers compete in a special pvp area with pvp dynamic events etc. You cannot be ganked by anyone if you're doing pve.
We know literally nothing about organized pvp except that everything from levels and skills to armor and potions will be normalized. We also know that there will be 5v5 pvp but not if there will be ONLY 5v5 pvp. So. Dont ***** about something we know nothing about before there is at least some information out about it.
Dynamic events have nothing to do with phasing in wow. NOTHING. Phasing is the world changing for you personally and only you once you get so some predetermined place in a personal questline. If you complete that quest before your friend you'll see your friend disappear from your game world in the phased area.
Dynamic events are, however, similar to public quests and rift events in WAR and rift respectively. They're a step up from these events though, as they often chain together and does not generally reset without player interaction.
check this thread and site:Zaik said:
http://www.killtenrats.com/2011/01/14/world-of-warcraft-players-guide-to-guild-wars-2/
and
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.236131-All-yours-Guild-Wars-2-Information-Topic-Alpha-and-Closed-Beta-Info-2-11-11-11-2-11
Ah I was thinking about making a thread like this! I'm glad someone else shares the same opinion as I. GW2 looks extremely innovative, and a good deal different that GW1. I just really hope they drop the "Missions" function of progressing through the game, that was the TRUE killer of GW. After all, you needed a full party, and people to do it with. No people to do it with? No progression. I just really hope they do it differently, but I have high hopes, but I don't want to get carried away.
It's looking great. I'm attempting to get more of those monument points at the moment for the rewards they'll grant when the game comes out.
At first, I was kinda meh to this game, but after reading all that stuff about it, it probably seems like the kind of MMO I always wanted.
Honestly, this game looks so awesome it has gotten me over my BioWare bias and if I had a choice, I'd definitely pick this game over ToR any day.
Might not have to either, with no subscription and whatnot?
Kind of related to this, but is Guild Wars still worth buying? Just wondering.
Honestly, this game looks so awesome it has gotten me over my BioWare bias and if I had a choice, I'd definitely pick this game over ToR any day.
Might not have to either, with no subscription and whatnot?
Kind of related to this, but is Guild Wars still worth buying? Just wondering.