Guild Wars 2

Beldin.5498:

Personally i don’t really have a problem if all those people that want their raids
go to Wildstar instead of turning GW2 into another raid grinder. However it
seems they simply always return .. as if its their personal crusade to make each
MMO similiar to all those others out there ^^

It wouldn’t be a raid grinder. You wouldn’t be getting any gear upgrades. Just unique skins. World Bosses are not challenging PvE content. This game lacks any sort of challenging content for PvE. I want to be engaged. Not spamming auto attack. I don’t get why so many of you are against challenging content.

It seems like you want this game to be so different that you would actually deny content. Different isn’t always good in the long run. Plus, Anet already said the challenging PvE content in HoT wouldn’t be in the open world. So there is a huge chance my wish may come true.

Suinz.5968:

Beldin.5498:

Personally i don’t really have a problem if all those people that want their raids
go to Wildstar instead of turning GW2 into another raid grinder. However it
seems they simply always return .. as if its their personal crusade to make each
MMO similiar to all those others out there ^^

It wouldn’t be a raid grinder. You wouldn’t be getting any gear upgrades. Just unique skins. World Bosses are not challenging PvE content. This game lacks any sort of challenging content for PvE. I want to be engaged. Not spamming auto attack. I don’t get why so many of you are against challenging content.

It seems like you want this game to be so different that you would actually deny content. Different isn’t always good in the long run. Plus, Anet already said the challenging PvE content in HoT wouldn’t be in the open world. So there is a huge chance my wish may come true.

They didn’t say that. That was how what Colin said was interpreted. It might be true, it might not be. But it is an assumption. And yes I saw the quote.

It is obnoxious to see people saying “I personally wouldn’t enjoy it, so it shouldn’t be added.” Such a childish mindset.

And yeah…as much as I’d like to believe that CJ’s quote was a promise of instanced content, it wasn’t. He just said that they wanted open-world PvE to be more challenging than it currently is.

You will likely never see content in the game that only a few select people can do, and if you do, it likely won’t be particularly rewarding.

Anet’s goal, for the most part, is for everyone to be able to play their content and have fun doing it (though they often fail at the latter).

The number of people who want to play 10-20 man instanced raids is a niche crowd at best and pleasing those people at the expense of others is likely not worth the investment (although they’ve been experimenting with the implementation of different difficulties).

It’s bad enough that they’re trying to cater to people who want to be special snowflakes with super rare RNG gear and who get off on the misfortune of others. We certainly don’t need them catering to some hardcore minority who gets off on feeling elitist because other people can’t handle the same content.

The existing dungeons aren’t only accessible to a small niche group. Just because something is instanced doesn’t mean it’s a super-hardcore 40 man raid.

It just means it has a challenge and are in a party where you have to contribute, rather than being able to AFK. It means you have control over who is in the party so you don’t have to deal with trolls and obnoxious people in the open world zones. It means you have a way to deal with griefers and AFKers. It means you can organize and control how the content is run, rather than hoping for luck-of-the-draw to land you in a decent overflow.

There is a lot more to instancing than raids.

Suinz.5968:

We need more instanced content instead of boring open world zergs. This game needs CHALLENGING instanced PvE content. We could have raids that give unique skins instead of tiers of gear. Plus, it would be better than being with randoms all the time.

That is one of the things other MMOs such as WoW does great. Challenging content that you can do with your guild. You’d be able to choose who you’d want to bring.

They love too much their auto attack spam content, but dont worry hopefully this year’s mmo will be better than last year’s, and we wont have to rely on gw2 anymore

Keneth.6490:

You will likely never see content in the game that only a few select people can do, and if you do, it likely won’t be particularly rewarding.

Anet’s goal, for the most part, is for everyone to be able to play their content and have fun doing it (though they often fail at the latter).

The number of people who want to play 10-20 man instanced raids is a niche crowd at best and pleasing those people at the expense of others is likely not worth the investment (although they’ve been experimenting with the implementation of different difficulties).

It’s bad enough that they’re trying to cater to people who want to be special snowflakes with super rare RNG gear and who get off on the misfortune of others. We certainly don’t need them catering to some hardcore minority who gets off on feeling elitist because other people can’t handle the same content.

They would be accessible to everyone. Just like how dungeons are. I don’t get the mindset of “ONLY A FEW AMOUNT OF PLAYERS ARE ABLE TO DO CHALLENGING INSTANCED CONTENT”. That makes absolutely no sense. ANYONE would be able to do the content. They would just have to put in the effort and not want to be carried by spamming auto-attack.

Vayne.8563:

I don’t believe that instanced content is really the goal of the company.

I have this feeling to, gw2 started out great tho. Free new dungeon paths, free new fractals, free new maps.
But then everything changed, and they started selling almost everything they created. I stopped playing when living story season 2 was 3/4 done, when i logged in some time later, i noticed that they asked money for season 2 missions, WUT?

Instead of creating maps, where u just have to follow a zerg to achieve something. They better invested in some decent dungeons, where u have to use a brain..

Don’t expect instanced content. There is no mention of new dungeons in HoT. GW2 is about open world events, such as Dry Top and Silverwastes.

nexxe.7081:

Don’t expect instanced content. There is no mention of new dungeons in HoT. GW2 is about open world events, such as Dry Top and Silverwastes.

Those zones are pretty much dead. Farming in event chains is BORING. It is not challenging whatsoever. Why does PvE have to be about spamming 1 and farming but not about challenging encounters?

Suinz.5968:

nexxe.7081:

Don’t expect instanced content. There is no mention of new dungeons in HoT. GW2 is about open world events, such as Dry Top and Silverwastes.

Those zones are pretty much dead. Farming in event chains is BORING. It is not challenging whatsoever. Why does PvE have to be about spamming 1 and farming but not about challenging encounters?

Because everybody can spam 1 like a boss and beat the content, and that’s what anet wants, content that everyone can beat, that’s their conception of a friendly community they wanna build.

dlonie.6547:

It is obnoxious to see people saying “I personally wouldn’t enjoy it, so it shouldn’t be added.” Such a childish mindset.

And yeah…as much as I’d like to believe that CJ’s quote was a promise of instanced content, it wasn’t. He just said that they wanted open-world PvE to be more challenging than it currently is.

There’s usually more to negative opinions than just, “I wouldn’t use it, so no.” It may be, “I don’t like what happens to the community.”; “I want access to all rewards through the content I prefer.”; or “I’d rather ANet spent development resources on stuff I would like.”

You can call it a childish mindset if you like, but it isn’t anymore than “I want hard instanced content.” plus reasons. Both are selfish.

I’d rather take the view that different demographics prefer different stuff; both are valid desires; thus one type of content cannot fulfill everyone’s needs; ergo, different demographics need to realize that not everything produced can be/is going to be aimed specifically at them. Under that view, hard instanced content is certainly due, and ought to be considered.

What I don’t know is the relative percentages in different groups. What I do know is that negative labeling of opposing points of view, while popular, is not helping.

IndigoSundown.5419:

dlonie.6547:

It is obnoxious to see people saying “I personally wouldn’t enjoy it, so it shouldn’t be added.” Such a childish mindset.

And yeah…as much as I’d like to believe that CJ’s quote was a promise of instanced content, it wasn’t. He just said that they wanted open-world PvE to be more challenging than it currently is.

There’s usually more to negative opinions than just, “I wouldn’t use it, so no.” It may be, “I don’t like what happens to the community.”; “I want access to all rewards through the content I prefer.”; or “I’d rather ANet spent development resources on stuff I would like.”

Reasons are ok. Many comments in this thread (and similar ones) do not have reasons.

You can call it a childish mindset if you like, but it isn’t anymore than “I want hard instanced content.” plus reasons. Both are selfish.

Not really. We’re not saying “I don’t like open world, so only add instanced content, don’t put any more casual stuff in the game.” We’re saying “Can we have some instanced content too? The casual stuff is fine, but it doesn’t do it for everyone.”

Meanwhile there are a lot of people saying “Don’t add this hard content because I personally don’t enjoy it.” Which is really another way of saying: “My interests are more important than anyone elses’.”

That’s childish.

I’d rather take the view that different demographics prefer different stuff; both are valid desires; thus one type of content cannot fulfill everyone’s needs; ergo, different demographics need to realize that not everything produced can be/is going to be aimed specifically at them. Under that view, hard instanced content is certainly due, and ought to be considered.

What I don’t know is the relative percentages in different groups. What I do know is that negative labeling of opposing points of view, while popular, is not helping.

You are not part of the problem, my friend

Vayne.8563:

I’m not afraid of instanced content because I can’t beat it. I’m not afraid of instanced content at all. I just don’t find at as fun.

Well, i don’t know which aspects of this game you do like then, seeing that:

open world: instanced maps.
Dungeons: small, instanced maps
pvp: instanced conquest battles
wvwvw: instanced server against server maps.

Vayne.8563:

I’m not afraid of instanced content because I can’t beat it. I’m not afraid of instanced content at all. I just don’t find at as fun.

I’m not afraid of open world content because it’s too easy. I’m not afraid of open world content at all. I just don’t find at as fun.

What now?

The best thing at challenging PvE content (in that case only possible instanced) is that it adds longevity. You can’t just go in there press one button and play through it. You have to learn things and you might even fail sometimes.

They could simply add a difficutly settings like “easy”, “normal” and “hard”. So on “easy” even the “1” pressing zergers can “play” the content.
Also about the loot. We don’t necessarily need unique skins or items, but just maybe “more” loot would be good.
For example when you play on “normal” you get 3 times the loot of “easy”. And when you play on “hard” get 5 times the loot of “easy”.
So the better you are the “more” loot you get for your time.

Don’t want to do 6 “bosses” that take 30 minutes each by mindlessly spamming “1”? Here get the same loot by doing just one boss that is much harder that takes about 1 hour instead BUT only if you are skilled enough to kill him.

Would that hurt you open world “players” that much?

No more instanced crap except player housing…

I’m pretty sure people who don’t want more instanced content are the same who were saying they wouldn’t notice if their traits would stop functioning. (Actually i think i’ve spotted some of the same names.)

Which makes me wonder if the real reason behind the whole “say no to instanced crap” is that instances show how much of a gap there is between people who know how to do the evil instanced content and those who like to spam 1 in open world.

On the flip side of the coin is the fact that digging up chests in the silverwastes is more rewarding than doing dungeons. Stupid game design.

serenke.4806:

I’m pretty sure people who don’t want more instanced content are the same who were saying they wouldn’t notice if their traits would stop functioning. (Actually i think i’ve spotted some of the same names.)

Which makes me wonder if the real reason behind the whole “say no to instanced crap” is that instances show how much of a gap there is between people who know how to do the evil instanced content and those who like to spam 1 in open world.

On the flip side of the coin is the fact that digging up chests in the silverwastes is more rewarding than doing dungeons. Stupid game design.

I’m pretty sure you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The game was originally sold as open world. They made much about dynamic events and made huge promises that never happened. I want them to fulfill that promise before attempting more instanced crap.

dlonie.6547:

IndigoSundown.5419:

dlonie.6547:

It is obnoxious to see people saying “I personally wouldn’t enjoy it, so it shouldn’t be added.” Such a childish mindset.

And yeah…as much as I’d like to believe that CJ’s quote was a promise of instanced content, it wasn’t. He just said that they wanted open-world PvE to be more challenging than it currently is.

There’s usually more to negative opinions than just, “I wouldn’t use it, so no.” It may be, “I don’t like what happens to the community.”; “I want access to all rewards through the content I prefer.”; or “I’d rather ANet spent development resources on stuff I would like.”

Reasons are ok. Many comments in this thread (and similar ones) do not have reasons.

You can call it a childish mindset if you like, but it isn’t anymore than “I want hard instanced content.” plus reasons. Both are selfish.

Not really. We’re not saying “I don’t like open world, so only add instanced content, don’t put any more casual stuff in the game.” We’re saying “Can we have some instanced content too? The casual stuff is fine, but it doesn’t do it for everyone.”

Meanwhile there are a lot of people saying “Don’t add this hard content because I personally don’t enjoy it.” Which is really another way of saying: “My interests are more important than anyone elses’.”

That’s childish.

I’d rather take the view that different demographics prefer different stuff; both are valid desires; thus one type of content cannot fulfill everyone’s needs; ergo, different demographics need to realize that not everything produced can be/is going to be aimed specifically at them. Under that view, hard instanced content is certainly due, and ought to be considered.

What I don’t know is the relative percentages in different groups. What I do know is that negative labeling of opposing points of view, while popular, is not helping.

You are not part of the problem, my friend

For which I’m thankful.

However, I also try to read between the lines of what posters post. My hypothesis is that rejection of requests by people who want something other than what the poster wants is usually based in fear that if that gets added, then the poster’s experience will be negatively affected — whether that’s rational or not. If viewed that way, there usually is a reason, though the poster may not be able to articulate it or even know that it’s there.

That’s not to say that these posters shouldn’t expand their view, or let go of their fear and realize that others wants need to be at least considered. However, calling their view childish is not the best way to accomplish this. Not that I don’t appreciate the frustration of those who want more challenge, I do. I just think that acceptance and redirection is a better tactic than denigration.

My two cents.

I’d like to see this too. Things that would require coordination between a large number of people instead of just " Run here and attack, now time to run back to here clear this, run back and attack, now everyone pop summons!" or “50 people here, now 50 more there, and the rest go there”. Zzzzz. If they can find a way to get multiple teams of 5 into one instance it would open up a lot of possibilities and remove a lot of the frustrations of open world. Multiple 5-man parties in FoW, or UW, or reviving Urgoz Deep.

This thread seems to be getting off topic.

uhohhotdog.3598:

The game was originally sold as open world. They made much about dynamic events and made huge promises that never happened. I want them to fulfill that promise before attempting more instanced crap.

So this game has no open world?

It was clear that their dynamic events would not be so special. It was advertising. C’mon…I also can’t fly, but the redbull guy in TV-Spots can. MC donalds might tell me about their lucky cows and blabla – but I’m sure mcdonalds bends the truth a bit.

Anet tried “one time” events with the karka-event after release – and it didn’t worked well. Atm we’re having some decent open world dynamic events. I don’t want one time events “karka style” back. Adds no content to the game, if you miss it you can’t play it later, all players have to do the same at the same time – hello lags.
So: no, ty. SW/Drytop Eventchains are fine.

btw: Anet promised also a dungeon rework. Not every promise gets fullfilled. Or have a look at this 2011 interview: dungeon interview

And when you finish the story version of a dungeon you unlock the explorable version of that dungeon.

Those are intended to be the super hard, very coordinated group style content like Slaver’s Exile, or Fissure of Woe, or the Underworld.

FoW, Slayer’s Exile or Underworld? Well…maybe an arah fullrun can be compared to them. Those were elite-areas which took “common” groups hours to finish. When everything went “okayish” you could easily spend 4-6 hours in them.
One wipe = kicked out of the instance. Ok, if i remember correct at those time there was no reward for finishing it, enemy loot was rewarding enough. So it did’t matter too much if you wiped (and many groups didn’t even try to finish)
But look at the dungeons we got: 10-30 min content. Only little teamwork required in most paths. Maybe a comparision with GW1 story, not those elite areas, would’ve been the better choice.
Should I now do the same as you do?
“I want them to fulfill those promises before attempting more open world crap.”
Well…no…dungeons are quite popular in GW2. There are many lfgs, there are many dungeon guilds. So dungeons seem to be ok, no need to change too much here (fix some bugs, exploits etc., ofc). But add some new ones. No one forces you to play dungeons.

Imho there has to be content for different type of players: open world content for singleplayers. Challenging open world content like tequatl for open world organized groups (i think there were tequatl and worm guilds). Easy instanced content like story for teamplayers, medium instanced content like AC etc. – and “hard dungeons” arah style. Ofc you could add more easy content or some harder content – but this should cover most interests.
But atm HoT seems to get a handful – 3-5? – open world maps. And thats it. Seems a bit disappointing to me.

Ameepa.6793:

No thanks to instanced stuff.

No thanks to your open world zerg

serenke.4806:

I’m pretty sure people who don’t want more instanced content are the same who were saying they wouldn’t notice if their traits would stop functioning. (Actually i think i’ve spotted some of the same names.)

Which makes me wonder if the real reason behind the whole “say no to instanced crap” is that instances show how much of a gap there is between people who know how to do the evil instanced content and those who like to spam 1 in open world.

On the flip side of the coin is the fact that digging up chests in the silverwastes is more rewarding than doing dungeons. Stupid game design.

This ^

What other possible reason could these rabid naysayers to any instanced content have for being so opposed to more game play options? Its not like the inclusion of a few instances is going to remove or even diminish open world zergs anymore than it does now. The only logical reason I can think of is they really don’t like content that shines a light on player skill gaps. For those that try to say that there is no skill involved in attempts and successes in flawless and near flawless instance clears…or even in discovering the most efficient tactics for instance clears, how is there any more or even equivalent skill in 50+ people spamming 1 in an open world nomad zerg?

Instanced content is really the only venue where team work and efficiency is really showcased. I include small scale pvp in this category. Combo fields, weapon selection, builds, etc really matter more in this type of content. Why should’t there be venues in the game where the mechanics and execution are important?

It’s a shame that so many people seem to dismiss the idea of new challenging content at a small-scale, particularly with the reasoning that the dungeon community is a small-proportion of the playerbase. I’d be very interested to see how many people would remain loyal to the idea of Silverwastes chest farm or daily Tequatl runs if they weren’t quite so lucrative for the wallet.

Personally I’d love some more challenging instanced content. For me, dungeons and small-scale PvP are by far the most engaging aspects of the game. Arenanet did an excellent job of utilizing various mechanics such as the combo-fields/finishers, controllable CC and precise movement/evasion that really shine when coupled with smaller scale skirmishes. Sure, there are issues that allow players to avoid the mechanics of fights but encounters can be designed and balanced such that those issues are either non-existant or restricted to only the most organised groups. Despite the analogy to WoW in the OP, I genuinely feel that it’s the active combat that differentiates GW2 in the MMO market.

Well, thing is, there’s plenty of games that do things that way… why not have ONE game that’s different?

Personally, I like open world content a lot more than instances. And I specifically hate the dungeons and fractals in GW2.

/shrug

uhohhotdog.3598:

The game was originally sold as open world. They made much about dynamic events and made huge promises that never happened. I want them to fulfill that promise before attempting more instanced crap.

It was not. It was sold as play how you want. They discussed dynamic events and meaningful choices in dungeons (explorable multi paths and story modes) at length. Both aspects fell short on the promises made.

Interesting.

Though it is far more difficult to design, I’d want less instanced content. Especially when it comes to challenging content. For a few reasons:

1. Open world content can actually feel like a MMO. We’re far enough technically that we can now have 100+ players act in large battles, the workaround of instancing things is no longer necessary. Or should not.
2. Challenging open world content creates “danger zones”. Players will learn that venturing with less than 5 people into the western area of X or less than 50 into the southern area or Y is a death wish.
3. Challenging open world content gets players to group up beforehand instead of just stumbling over one another. GW2 already has a very good PvE system when it comes to adding incentive to working together. Now it needs to add reason to actively socialize.
4. Instancing content “hides” it. The world is beautiful and lush, and art should be exposed. That doesn’t mean there can’t be caverns and building interiors, but it should be one fluid no-zone-no-loading-no-nothing world, ideally. Zone boundaries are already a weird thing which I’d want removed.

Broom.2561:

Well, thing is, there’s plenty of games that do things that way… why not have ONE game that’s different?

Personally, I like open world content a lot more than instances. And I specifically hate the dungeons and fractals in GW2.

/shrug

And that. I have MMOs to play for instanced content centric game design.
If I wanted that, I’d play those. Why not? They specialize in it, they do it worlds better.

What they do worse is open content. GW2 excels in that, although it has plenty room to grow. Much like with EVE Online, I’d rather see the devs play to their strengths (open world, partially WvW) instead of their weaknesses (sPvP, instances).

dlonie.6547:

But imagine if they’d kept working at them — kept designing new ones, tweaking the old ones, working with their community to improve them…If they’d even been attempted, second or third generation dungeons would have been amazing. But they didn’t even try.

They kind of tried. I really liked Molten Facility, it was a huge step forward in dungeon design in terms of both boss encounters and standard enemies in the dungeon. The Thermal Core event was some good variety because it wasn’t just a race to kill a boss as fast as you can. You needed to use your wits to avoid the hazards, and it even gave reasons to use skills you might not frequently use in dungeons, like blinks/portal/spectral walk, as well as pulls/launches to dislodge molten protectors so they can’t protect the core. It was far from a perfect dungeon, but like you said if they kept working at it dungeons could get better; molten facility was evidence of that.

But this was back in their “let’s only make temporary content because that’s totally not a really stupid idea” phase. To their credit you can do bits of it in fractals, but the inconsistency of random fractal assignment means you can’t do it when you want to.

Furthermore I don’t understand the sentiment that they ought not do anymore instanced content ever. Why not? Does it really have to be a one or the other kind of deal? They’re releasing stronghold and new wvw maps with the expansion, we didn’t need to make some kind of Sophie’s Choice between pvp and pve. Why should our only options for new pve content be open world OR dungeons but not both? Why shouldn’t we expect new content and updates for a major part of the game?

Carighan.6758:

1. Open world content can actually feel like a MMO. We’re far enough technically that we can now have 100+ players act in large battles, the workaround of instancing things is no longer necessary. Or should not.

With 100+ players all you do is press 1 and go afk. In most cases that’s because you can’t see the boss properly, or you are lagging terribly. We are NOT ready to have 100+ players in large battles yet, at least not with the GW2 engine.

1. Challenging open world content creates “danger zones”. Players will learn that venturing with less than 5 people into the western area of X or less than 50 into the southern area or Y is a death wish.

What’s the difference then from instanced content that requires 10-50 players to do?

1. Challenging open world content gets players to group up beforehand instead of just stumbling over one another. GW2 already has a very good PvE system when it comes to adding incentive to working together. Now it needs to add reason to actively socialize.

But in the open world players do not actually group up beforehand, that’s what happens with instanced content instead. You group up before you start the dungeon, in the open world there is no actual reason to group up, players just come and go, press 1 for a while then they can leave and get their rewards. The “incentive” in open world PVE is to be lazy, you can get contribution on all events by just auto attacking from a corner with zero effort and zero skill requirement. Then just go afk and get the rewards.

I’d rather see the devs play to their strengths (open world, partially WvW) instead of their weaknesses (sPvP, instances).

Why not make instances and sPvP their strength too?

sure, gw2 needs more instanced pve content

but we won’t get any

move along folks, if you want more instances you’re playing the wrong game

DeWolfe.2174:

Just say no to instanced content.

Yeah lets have more of the “WP into a map sit at champ spawn waiting for others to hopefully run the pre-events or whine if no one is doing them/doing them fast enough, kill boss in 30 seconds and then WP to the next one.. rinse repeat on the egg timer”

Yeah just say yes to kitten, skill less content which requires nothing more challenging then selecting the correct WP, hitting auto attack for a few seconds or digging kitten in the sand to uncover endless amounts of hidden chest.. of course its also a challenge to ensure you have enough inventory spaces in which to accumulate the fruits of your efforts that you did nowt to earn.

Then again ANET seem to like the zergfest, farmfest, failfest approach and what does have some effort involved like 3HW they can’t even be bothered to scale such things appropriately to make it possible for more players to complete rather than just a few large scale map capped spawns that becomes a lottery to try and zone into.

maddoctor.2738:

Why not make instances and sPvP their strength too?

Because trying to do twice as much means you’ll at best do each thing half as well, usually less than that. I get that feeling right now. The devs are stretched too thin. Too many too disjunct game elements and player preferences to cater to and care about.

Open world content was doomed from the beginning if you are looking for challenging content. There is no open world pvp and everyone gets their own loot. This just makes people gather the biggest group possible to go pewpew.

Now imagine the craziness that would ensue if they put bosses (precursors as loot or something) into WVW during peak hours. A limited amount of loot people have to share on top of that. Would spice things up for sure.
But it just doesn’t sound like it fits the “everyone should play together and have fun” spirit.

Considering how they have been very careful not to mention anything too specific whenever they talk about “challenging” pve content makes me doubt that it will be anything instanced once again, though.
And also, people have greatly different opinions and scales on what is challenging.

Some people are less tolerable than others. They dont want to play with strangers. They want to control who they play with. Open world doesnt let you do that. Which can lead to incredible hostility.

Theres also the issue of open world content being completely trivialised by zerging with sheer numbers. No matter how much you try to split the zerg up there will always be a numbers issue. And it can cause even more negative experiences when the map doesnt split up properly.

You also cant expect a full map to properly split in open world. There are some people that just dont want to be that person to go fill the numbers where they are needed. Which means some groups always have too many and others always have too little.

Map wide splitting and organisation is a massive headache and the challenge comes from organisation not actual individual effort and skill. And because of this it leads to pseudo instancing via overflow hopping with big community teamspeak servers (See Triple Trouble for reference). Which completely negates the point of it being open world in the first place as it no longer becomes all inclusive of every type of player.

Henry.5713:

Open world content was doomed from the beginning if you are looking for challenging content. There is no open world pvp and everyone gets their own loot. This just makes people gather the biggest group possible to go pewpew.

See… there is nothing wrong with that kind of friendly pewpew, but there should be room for instances too. They could coexist, like they have all this time, but Anet is not really doing either right. If DT and SW are testing grounds for what HoT areas will be like, then i can already foresee the complaints from BOTH sides of the argument.

If you have to use Super Mario-like jumping and gliding to get to places, that will kitten off the “wp to boss, press 1, loot” crowd because they’ll find it too much effort. It will also kitten off the dungeon community as they will find it too gimmicky and not challenging in the right way. Besides, such things will be fun for the first 3 days then it will become tedious and awkward for everyone.

Jockum.1385:

uhohhotdog.3598:

The game was originally sold as open world. They made much about dynamic events and made huge promises that never happened. I want them to fulfill that promise before attempting more instanced crap.

So this game has no open world?

It was clear that their dynamic events would not be so special. It was advertising. C’mon…I also can’t fly, but the redbull guy in TV-Spots can. MC donalds might tell me about their lucky cows and blabla – but I’m sure mcdonalds bends the truth a bit.

Anet tried “one time” events with the karka-event after release – and it didn’t worked well. Atm we’re having some decent open world dynamic events. I don’t want one time events “karka style” back. Adds no content to the game, if you miss it you can’t play it later, all players have to do the same at the same time – hello lags.
So: no, ty. SW/Drytop Eventchains are fine.

btw: Anet promised also a dungeon rework. Not every promise gets fullfilled. Or have a look at this 2011 interview: dungeon interview

And when you finish the story version of a dungeon you unlock the explorable version of that dungeon.

Those are intended to be the super hard, very coordinated group style content like Slaver’s Exile, or Fissure of Woe, or the Underworld.

FoW, Slayer’s Exile or Underworld? Well…maybe an arah fullrun can be compared to them. Those were elite-areas which took “common” groups hours to finish. When everything went “okayish” you could easily spend 4-6 hours in them.
One wipe = kicked out of the instance. Ok, if i remember correct at those time there was no reward for finishing it, enemy loot was rewarding enough. So it did’t matter too much if you wiped (and many groups didn’t even try to finish)
But look at the dungeons we got: 10-30 min content. Only little teamwork required in most paths. Maybe a comparision with GW1 story, not those elite areas, would’ve been the better choice.
Should I now do the same as you do?
“I want them to fulfill those promises before attempting more open world crap.”
Well…no…dungeons are quite popular in GW2. There are many lfgs, there are many dungeon guilds. So dungeons seem to be ok, no need to change too much here (fix some bugs, exploits etc., ofc). But add some new ones. No one forces you to play dungeons.

Imho there has to be content for different type of players: open world content for singleplayers. Challenging open world content like tequatl for open world organized groups (i think there were tequatl and worm guilds). Easy instanced content like story for teamplayers, medium instanced content like AC etc. – and “hard dungeons” arah style. Ofc you could add more easy content or some harder content – but this should cover most interests.
But atm HoT seems to get a handful – 3-5? – open world maps. And thats it. Seems a bit disappointing to me.

I didn’t say it has no open world. You’re twisting my words. I don’t care about redbull advertising. When a game sells you on the point that it would be filled with event chains that have a lasting affect on the world, they should try that. I don’t want “one time” events. I want event CHAINS. You do one event that leads to another event and so on and so on. The majority of events in the game are single events that lead to nothing else, or attack this camp, and then defend it. Wooooooooooo. 2 whole events in a row. Not much of a chain there.

spoj.9672:

uhohhotdog.3598:

The game was originally sold as open world. They made much about dynamic events and made huge promises that never happened. I want them to fulfill that promise before attempting more instanced crap.

It was not. It was sold as play how you want. They discussed dynamic events and meaningful choices in dungeons (explorable multi paths and story modes) at length. Both aspects fell short on the promises made.

Yes. It was. They made a big deal out of the world not being stagnant. What you do has an effect blah blah blah. They used the event chain about a dragon destroying a bridge repeatedly to explain event chains.

uhohhotdog.3598:

spoj.9672:

It was not. It was sold as play how you want. They discussed dynamic events and meaningful choices in dungeons (explorable multi paths and story modes) at length. Both aspects fell short on the promises made.

Yes. It was. They made a big deal out of the world not being stagnant. What you do has an effect blah blah blah. They used the event chain about a dragon destroying a bridge repeatedly to explain event chains.

But that wasnt the only thing they were talking about. They were also talking about similar choices for dungeons. The game was never advertised as fully open world. They were very excited to reveal their take on instanced dungeons and explorable paths. Dont make stuff up to suit your own agenda.

We could just as easily demand they make good on that dungeon choice promise instead before they create more “open world crap”. But i wont because i knows theres merits to having both types. Sadly many people seem to be against a range of content when it involves stuff they dont personally care about.

spoj.9672:

uhohhotdog.3598:

The game was originally sold as open world. They made much about dynamic events and made huge promises that never happened. I want them to fulfill that promise before attempting more instanced crap.

It was not. It was sold as play how you want. They discussed dynamic events and meaningful choices in dungeons (explorable multi paths and story modes) at length. Both aspects fell short on the promises made.

Though the game was originally sold as having dungeons, and having a personal story, the focal point was always dynamic events and the open world. What did Anet actually say about the game? That they wanted to create a living/breathing world. A virtual world. Build worlds is what they focused on.

That’s not to say they didn’t mention dungeons…they absolutely mentioned them. But a mention is not a focus.
-
I followed this game very closely for years before it launched, and for a fact, they were talking about a living breathing world as the main goal for the game, and dynamic events as the center piece of it.

If you need more evidence, they focused afterwards on the Living World, which focused on the open world. During all the Living World chapters, they had 2 dungeons or 3 if you count the tiny one in Southsun with the traps. More like a minigame that one.

Anet has focused on the open world and events. The nightmare tower was open world. The marionette. Escape from Lion’s Arch. Battle for Lion’s Arch. Triple Trouble and the new Tequatl fight, were all open world.

Anet didn’t dissolve their open world team, they dissolved their dungeon team. But I knew, coming into this game before it ever launched that the focus was supposed to be open world. Even though they mentioned dungeons. Even though they mentioned other stuff. Focus is focus.

And every other aspect of the playerbase, PvP players, WvW players and dungeon runners are all complaining they haven’t been getting attention and all the focus goes to the Living Story and the open world.

Anet tried expanding dynamic events and they didn’t give the results they wanted, so they came out with the Living World. And then when the first season wasn’t as well received as they wanted, they came out with a second season which was better received and still has work that needs to be done to make it more accepted.

But a living world of some time was always the goal. Anet said so even before the game launched.

The dynamic events was focused on because it was innovative and good for marketing. Dont try to spin it any other way. They have never said that one particular area is the focus of the game. Thats just your opinion.

Its certainly true they have focused more on open world content over time for various reasons. But that doesnt mean its the main focus of the game. Its just easier and more popular to develop. But it doesnt really have the same longevity as other content.

spoj.9672:

The dynamic events was focused on because it was innovative and good for marketing. Dont try to spin it any other way. They have never said that one particular area is the focus of the game. Thats just your opinion.

Its certainly true they have focused more on open world content over time for various reasons. But that doesnt mean its the main focus of the game. Its just easier and more popular to develop. But it doesnt really have the same longevity as other content.

Sorry they did say their goal was to create a living/breathing world. Not just once but many many times. Now I’m not sure how anyone things an instance would be a part of that.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/

First page now of the description of the game. Bold letters:

“Enter a living, breathing fantasy world”

It’s always what was talked about. In your OPINION it was marketing which is why they said it, but my OPINION is not only backed up by what they said, but also by what they’ve done.

Yes the game needs more challenging instanced pve content.

The game is a themepark, not some deeply complex sandbox, adding in some new instanced content is not going to suddenly take away peoples beloved semi afk chest farm zergs, or prevent them from adding other non instanced stuff.

If they had wanted to purely focus on a “open, living, breathing fantasy world” they should have made a player driven sandbox. Instead they made a themepark which includes instanced pve.

@Vayne
If that was the main purpose of the game they would not have developed dungeons and later on fractals. Its an important part of making open world stand out from other MMO’s. And its popular with a large group so its contantly developed. But thats all it is.

Dungeons are clearly listed on that page as well. I really dont see any indication that dynamic events and open world was the main focus. They wanted varied content types to suit multiple different types of players. And that is purely a marketing page.

I assume they still want varied content types to appeal to different groups otherwise they would have completely shut down support of other areas and closed all dungeons. They wouldnt be announcing things like adventures, fractal masteries and “challenging group content” if they werent interested in creating varied content.

Fenrir.3609:

Yes the game needs more challenging instanced pve content.

The game is a themepark, not some deeply complex sandbox, adding in some new instanced content is not going to suddenly take away peoples beloved semi afk chest farm zergs, or prevent them from adding other non instanced stuff.

If they had wanted to really focus on a “open, living, breathing fantasy world” they should have made a player driven sandbox. Instead they made a themepark with dynamic zergs ("open world!!) and instanced pve content.

I’m not disagreeing or agreeing with you. It may be that you’re right. I’m simply saying that I believe the open world to be the internal focus of the company and I believe that state of affairs have existed from day one.

That doesn’t mean that instanced content won’t benefit the game. I just think Anet is really trying to provide a way forward in the open world and STILL have challenging content. I think they’ve been experimenting the whole time with stuff like the marionette and the nightmare tower and they’ve been honing their skills in that creation.

I know a lot of people who insist that only instances will serve will be disappointed, but others won’t. That’s how it is. No game is going to please everyone.

Frankly, I hope Anet can make challenging open world content, that can’t be zerged. Time will tell.

Vayne.8563:

spoj.9672:

The dynamic events was focused on because it was innovative and good for marketing. Dont try to spin it any other way. They have never said that one particular area is the focus of the game. Thats just your opinion.

Its certainly true they have focused more on open world content over time for various reasons. But that doesnt mean its the main focus of the game. Its just easier and more popular to develop. But it doesnt really have the same longevity as other content.

Sorry they did say their goal was to create a living/breathing world. Not just once but many many times. Now I’m not sure how anyone things an instance would be a part of that.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/

First page now of the description of the game. Bold letters:

“Enter a living, breathing fantasy world”

It’s always what was talked about. In your OPINION it was marketing which is why they said it, but my OPINION is not only backed up by what they said, but also by what they’ve done.

Yeah a living breathing world full of meaningful epic dynamic event that very few do or are able to do should a failtrain zerg take claim….
The only real epic events are simply cheesed because the lack of any meaningful scaleability and “consequence” and merely require the zerg to WP in, crush the mobs in seconds and WP to the next map moments later.. yeah epic dynamic events with such meaningful consequences ftw!!

They also said something about not wanting the “swing sword, swing a sword again, swing it 10 times…” – I guess like the many other words laid out in their original idea of the game.. things change and instanced content would be a welcome change for me personally. This WP in with a full zerg and autoattack for a few seconds then off to the next just isn’t cutting it for a leading AAA MMO, we may as well be back in the 80’s on our ATARI’s playing space invaders for the endless resets of same “epic dynamic event”… then again at least when you cleared a screen of mobs in space invaders the next one got progressively more difficult.

“open world content” will never be challenging. and you dont have to be a genius to understand why.

Bloodstealer.5978:

Vayne.8563:

spoj.9672:

The dynamic events was focused on because it was innovative and good for marketing. Dont try to spin it any other way. They have never said that one particular area is the focus of the game. Thats just your opinion.

Its certainly true they have focused more on open world content over time for various reasons. But that doesnt mean its the main focus of the game. Its just easier and more popular to develop. But it doesnt really have the same longevity as other content.

Sorry they did say their goal was to create a living/breathing world. Not just once but many many times. Now I’m not sure how anyone things an instance would be a part of that.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/

First page now of the description of the game. Bold letters:

“Enter a living, breathing fantasy world”

It’s always what was talked about. In your OPINION it was marketing which is why they said it, but my OPINION is not only backed up by what they said, but also by what they’ve done.

Yeah a living breathing world full of meaningful epic dynamic event that very few do or are able to do should a failtrain zerg take claim….
The only real epic events are simply cheesed because the lack of any meaningful scaleability and “consequence” and merely require the zerg to WP in, crush the mobs in seconds and WP to the next map moments later.. yeah epic dynamic events with such meaningful consequences ftw!!

They also said something about not wanting the “swing sword, swing a sword again, swing it 10 times…” – I guess like the many other words laid out in their original idea of the game.. things change and instanced content would be a welcome change for me personally. This WP in with a full zerg and autoattack for a few seconds then off to the next just isn’t cutting it for a leading AAA MMO, we may as well be back in the 80’s on our ATARI’s playing space invaders for the endless resets of same “epic dynamic event”… then again at least when you cleared a screen of mobs in space invaders the next one got progressively more difficult.

Whether they were successful or not doesn’t alter my point even a little. As for the swung a sword line, I’m pretty sure what Colin meant by it isn’t what most people think he meant by it.

Edited to be less offensive.

NoTrigger.8396:

“open world content” will never be challenging. and you dont have to be a genius to understand why.

I’d avoid using the word never. Usually when people use it, they’re wrong.

Challenging, as already pointed out, means different things to different people. I absolutely believe that open world content can be challenging if designed correctly.

open world content will pretty much only ever pose organisational challenges rather than challenging the individual skill of a player.

NoTrigger.8396:

“open world content” will never be challenging. and you dont have to be a genius to understand why.

It may not be challenging to you.

It is to a lot of players. For various reasons.

For one, there are those who have difficulties understanding the mechanics of what’s going on right now (Breach copper boss, anyone?). This is a problem of personal skill level (so it is a challenge to them) and it is wide spread. I still rezz dozens of players during a normal flow of SW.

Then there are events where the problem is the amount of coordination required by a lot of players at the same time (Teq was like that, TT still is, Balthazar temple is still easy to fail). This is not about personal challenge but about group behavior.

So the meaning of “challenging” is very subjective, as I see it. Plus, there is another aspect.

Personally, I hate group instances, at least of the group size this game has to offer. Waaaaaay too many bad experiences in 15+ years of MMO gaming in the past. After almost 3 years there are still dungeon paths I have never set foot into and I quite likely never will and I still have <15 fractal runs. They are not entertaining to me, so I don’t even care whether they are challenging or not. But I liked the few open world raids I came across in various games. They were something that I value much higher than challenging: they were fun.

Liadri was in the open world, not an instance. Just saying.