Guild Wars 2

Duke Blackrose.4981:

hydeaut.1758:

And no waypoints make a tiny map feel big . . .

In attempting to refute his argument, you literally just explained why fewer waypoints is a perfect system.

I would rather say it´s a lazy system to artificially make tiny content look bigger – because a small map stays small, no matter what.

That´s also where your argument for exploration fails – one evening and I´ve seen it all, the single waypoint will stay as such though.

“Best” experience in your perfect system so far: after taking back a castle, I was stuck in an instantly repaired wall, all I could do was porting to the waypoint. Of course it was a wall in the castle in the West and the timer for the underground Boss-events started shortly after that . . .

I couldn’t disagree with the OP more. Silverwastes needs at least one more waypoint for the space it occupies, placed somewhere along the current western edge. The run back from the existing one is far too long. A lot of the recent maps suffer from similar problems, Edge of the Mists is AGONIZING to play in because if the action is happening on the other end of the map it can take five minutes or more to catch up. When designing maps they need to clock the time it takes to run from the nearest WP to where you died, and if it’s more than a minute, add more waypoints.

Ohoni.6057:

I couldn’t disagree with the OP more. Silverwastes needs at least one more waypoint for the space it occupies, placed somewhere along the current western edge. The run back from the existing one is far too long. A lot of the recent maps suffer from similar problems, Edge of the Mists is AGONIZING to play in because if the action is happening on the other end of the map it can take five minutes or more to catch up. When designing maps they need to clock the time it takes to run from the nearest WP to where you died, and if it’s more than a minute, add more waypoints.

I disagree because both Silverwastes and Edge of the Mists are warzones. It makes no sense to have a waypoint deep in enemy territory. Looking at it inversely, that would be like spawning mordrem in the Pact’s base just because they don’t feel like running across no man’s land.

Personally, I think waypoints have spoiled you guys. Death finally has a consequence, (inconvenience) and you want to take that away. Why? Where is the challenge and the thrill if can just get back to where you were?

The map isn’t even Fully open yet, there are 3 more Vallys with vines blocking the way , whats to say these places will have a Camp and a Waypoint.

Problem solved, and some of you Argueing that the little area needs more waypoints will only promote , Dead running/ Zerging again for loot.

You know anets stance on making areas into Farm fests , they allow it only if its Difficult / balanced with its rewards.

just Waypointing to the events :p whats fun with that just going from event to event with no Adventure inbetween , in the end its giving you more options because you arn’t pigeon holed into Attentending EVERY event on a map.

These new fort Defenses to lure out champion bosses are Defence events where Moving zerging from fort to fort is not effective, by the time you get to other fort the previous fort is under attack.

its a well Desgined system to get people to adventure and Defend for loot rather than Zerging Events./

I disagree because both Silverwastes and Edge of the Mists are warzones. It makes no sense to have a waypoint deep in enemy territory. Looking at it inversely, that would be like spawning mordrem in the Pact’s base just because they don’t feel like running across no man’s land.

A fair point to argue from a lore perspective, but from a gameplay perspective it sucks. It just does. Running around on the way to have fun is not fun. I like to explore, but exploring is discovering new areas, not retreading old ones for the thousandth time. If a player dies, he should be able to get back to where he was with minimal fuss. If a player spawns into EotM when the fight is halfway across the map, he should be able to get there within thirty seconds.

Now EotM has a few “shortcuts”, but these are very poorly documented and I’m afraid I don’t play it enough to know them, so I just take the land route. Ideally if a shortcut is open, it would be indicated on the map with a unique icon at each end, and a line connecting them. For that matter, it would be great if the nearby land routes were all noted on the map, because some of those areas are very complicated vertically and the most obvious routes turn out to dead end. Little arrows that appear on the minimap when you come nearby that show the local routes to other islands would be handy.

But more specifically to Silverwastes, if it wouldn’t work to establish a permanent, uncontested WP at the other end, then fine, but provide an alternative. Perhaps you have to WP back to base, but you can then talk to an NPC that will “airdrop” you at any base that is currently pact held (even if contested). Functionally it would be mostly similar to WPing, with a little extra load time involved, still much faster than running back.

If they wanted, another way to do it would be to have a “high way.” Maybe I’ve been playing a bit too much Sunset Overdrive lately, but have it so that when you are in the base, you can climb to the top of the cliffs, and then there is a “course” full of Zephirite crystals that allows you to travel, out of combat and at high speed, across the cliff tops, and then drop down at the base of your choice in less than a minute after you rez (but you can’t get back up from there).

TLDR; however they justify it, they need to have better ways to move around these maps than jogging.

It’s probably too late but maybe they could have made a keep that can be upgraded to have a waypoint. This way people would need to work toward getting and maintaining their waypoint. Like in wvw.

Otherwise only having 1 waypoint don’t bother me so much. The map is rather small and walking dolyak supply caravan is important. I walk one all the way to where i’m going everytime I go there.

I like this system, 1 wp is ok. If people die they can protect caravan in their way back.

I think that most of people are just greedy and wanna more wp to kill each of champions whose appear in breach every 45min? < this would be 1zerk – 5min showdown again.

I am ok with 1wp and w/o mounts.

leman.7682:

Great job, ArenaNet. Whoever designed the map and came up with the idea of not putting waypoints everywhere around deserves a bonus and a hug from Colin or… something! I really hope it’s not just a single instance of this design.

What do you guys think?

I agree. Only having one waypoint matches to the overall theme and atmosphere of the map.

Greetings.

We shall see if its so great in 8 months.

Essence Snow.3194:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

hydeaut.1758:

Fernling.1729:

Yeah, the waypoints make the world feel tiny.

And no waypoints make a tiny map feel big . . .

This map needs a ton of players and coordination to beat it, lack of waypoints and mechanics like damage over time in lost castles won´t help to fill it in the long run.

This will probably end with an empty map – except for planned, coordinated runs like Tequatl or dry top rank 6.

In attempting to refute his argument, you literally just explained why fewer waypoints is a perfect system.

The Silverwastes single/few waypoint system allows content to feel bigger without actually being bigger, increasing its value while also encouraging players to explore it.

This is a far superior approach to larger maps with more waypoints, as it has nowhere near the population spread. This allows players to group up more (while split-encouraging mechanics like those of Silverwastes prevent mindless zerging). The result is a more immersive world that is much less resource-intensive to update and to run. As an added bonus, this type of content holds up FAR better to subsequent updates. A world of large zones will quickly become overstretched, causing worse and worse community spread and more dead zones. Hell, we have already seen this occur.

And that’s not even mentioning the gameplay benefits. Encouraged exploration. Increased emphasis on reviving, healing, and team play. The list goes on.

Quite frankly, Guild Wars 2 would be twice the game that it is now if it had launched with this form of design.

Everything there is subjective. Obviously everyone does not feel the same way. Why would it be better to force other players to play the way you’d like when you have the option to play the way you like when they have the option. The only thing it would accomplish is to take the other players desired play style away.

Let me see if I can explain this by putting the shoe on the other foot.

They introduce a zone where you MUST use way points. Some players love it and suggest all zones should be that way regardless of others liking to run everywhere and immerse themselves in the journey, b/c it feels more efficient to them. Even though they already have the option to use way points in all the other zones, they still want to force you to use them too.

Doesn’t seem like quite such a good idea does it?

When not using way-points in a game that has way-points all over the place you are giving your a disadvantage over the other players so it’s not as simple as “just use them” plus it’s human nature that you always look for the path of least resistance while at the same time that can and will take away the fun. Simply the fact that there is that path of least resistance does that.

So no convenience is not automatically good in a game.

You know what would be convenient, if there was an NPC in every city that would freely hand out everything you want. Any item in the game you can get there. No need to earn it, extremely convenient and if that NPC would be put there today many people would go there. However it would also completely devaluate all items in the game and by doing that killing the game.

So simply because people might like the conveniences way-points provide it does not mean it’s automatically good for the game in general. In all honestly I think mounts are a better form of fast travel then way-points are. They add new content (collecting those mounts) and they prevent scaling down the world because you can way-point everywhere while still giving you a way to travel to places fast enough. (Mounts is just one example, public transport like a trains and other fast travel points would imho also do a better job then way-points) But of course way-points are much more convenient.

The heck with mounts and more waypoints.
Bring in Mad Mardine to set up a cattlepult to shoot you back into the fray for the cost of 10 silver or something. Precise landing area not guaranteed.

Lack of waypoints is bad…

Downtime, travelling from a to b becomes very repetitive after a while…its new and shiney now but after its been around sometime it will become increasingly annoying.

Meglobob.8620:

Lack of waypoints is bad…

Downtime, travelling from a to b becomes very repetitive after a while…its new and shiney now but after its been around sometime it will become increasingly annoying.

I still prefer it and I have seen it in other mmo’s for years. So I would not consider the lack of way-points new and shiny.

I don’t really like it – the lack of WPs made me lose interest in the map pretty fast.
It isn’t really fun to walk to what you wanted to do and take as long as it took to actually do what you intended to do there.

Essence Snow.3194:

I never understood the “I don’t like way points, they make the world feel small/ make me lose my immersion” crowd.

There’s a very easy way to fix that. DON"T USE THEM….problem solved

For those who enjoy way points…..the reverse is not easy in instances like this. As such I am of the belief that they should be there.

Here’s the problem with your argument:

Maps must be designed around the type of content/ features they have. A map designed around multiple WPs in mind is going to be fine-tuned in a very different way than a map designed with few/ one WP/s in mind.

So, to put it into other words. A normal GW2 map would be very boring and frustrating if you simply removed most of the WPs. Why? Because it would take too long to go anywhere, and for no meaningful reward and challenge. They are designed around the idea of efficiency: pick an event spot, WP there, do it. Exploration on foot is interesting the first time around, for collecting new WPs/ vistas/ etc. But after that, there’s not much to it, outside of the occasional, unreliable, random event.

Silverwastes is totally different. Events are everywhere along the road. Everywhere. Going somewhere, in Silverwastes, always gives you something to do, with unique rewards behind it, and ultimately tied to a map-wide sense of progression. Death can actually be meaningful, rezzing becomes relevant, the road is as dangerous and exciting, and events and unique event rewards are everywhere, everywhere.

There’s a massive difference between playing Silverwastes, and playing any other GW2 map without waypoints. The first is involving and rewarding. The second is not.

It won’t certainly appeal to everyone, but there’s a lot to win with this new design philosophy. And, if a portion of the casual playerbase ends up not liking it, Anet can always add mounts, ultimately making the game even more rewarding, even more immersive, even more customisable.

A solitary waypoint is.. not so great.

I’d appreciate each of the bases having waypoints. It would give us even more reason to fight for those bases.

I wouldn’t advocate the way the rest of the waypoints are in the rest of GW2. Most of them felt out of place, and they make me wonder, lore-wise, why the Asura would set them up.

Edit: +1 for DiogoSilva

Rauderi.8706:

A solitary waypoint is.. not so great.

I’d appreciate each of the bases having waypoints. It would give us even more reason to fight for those bases.

I could get behind this if and only if these waypoints required construction through upgrade tiers on the forts – as is the case with actual WvW.

I don’t get how you guys say more waypoints would cause more zerging. Even if there was another waypoint on the western side, you still need people at all four forts (and some escorting the bulls). All the waypoint would do is help people defending at the western forts (amber and blue) be able to get back to help defend faster (and help get to the story mission over there too).

I really hope I never play on the same map as some of you. I now have the feeling that I should just stand above your defeated body and just sit there (which I don’t like doing), just to show you that having less waypoints does not make it more necessary to revive others. (Would be even better if it was right as the defeat champs event starts)

skullmount.1758:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

SNIP

Your starting quote is actually false. “Everything there is subjective?”

No. Some of that was most definitely fact. It is a fact that less waypointing encourages exploration because it forces it. It is an observable fact that fewer waypoints increases the importance of revives. It is a fact that smaller maps spread the population less.

None of these are subjective qualities. To say otherwise is to not understand the definitions of subjective and objective.

Now, can you make a point that waypointing is efficient and convenient and that some players will prefer this style of gameplay? Yes. Yes you can. And balls to your efficiency; virtually every flaw with the game’s dungeon metas has been the direct result of players pursuing efficiency. There. Now THAT is subjective.

Less waypoints does and does not encourage/force exploration. Even with the waypoints that exist in the starting maps still required exploration. Exploration is only really good for the first time somewhere. Just because we have waypoints doesn’t mean there is no exploration. It just makes it easier to get back to someplace later on.

Less waypoints does and doesn’t make revives more important. If people are going to revive someone it doesn’t matter if there is a waypoint close or not (for the most part). Its up to the players (both reviver and revivee). Its the reviver’s choice whether or not to stop and revive someone or just keep going. Same with the revivee, its their choice to sit there and hope to get revived or waypoint and run back.

Running on a map to get to some way-points, PoI’s, vista’s and hearths is not what I consider exploring. What I consider exploring is going into a map, seeing something in the distance that gets your attention, going there to see what it is, maybe there is an NPC who gives you a quest telling something about him or the area and sending you eventually to another place. Along the way you see yet something else interesting so you check that out and so on, and so on.

So to that degree there is not exploring in GW2 at all, there is just checking of places you need to visit for map completion. But without the way-points at least you travel over the land seeing things you might have missed before and you would else never have seen again because you way-point skipping that area onces you run passed it before when running from one way-point to the next. So it gives a little more that feeling of exploring but more important it makes everything feel a bit more as one thing, one big world in stead of little islands where there is something to do for you.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Rauderi.8706:

A solitary waypoint is.. not so great.

I’d appreciate each of the bases having waypoints. It would give us even more reason to fight for those bases.

I could get behind this if and only if these waypoints required construction through upgrade tiers on the forts – as is the case with actual WvW.

That.. actually sounds kinda fun. o_O

Even without the waypoints, I definitely appreciate Silverwastes much more than DryTop (which needs 50% more waypoints, by the way).

I Love the one WP only map. It finally manages to break up the zerg that has plagued this game since launch. Instead of WP from event to event and zerging it down, players actually have to spread out, explore, coordinate, and enjoy the content rather than just zerging it in a blob.

Hopefully more of the maps are designed this way in the future.

Also it takes less than 2 minutes to run across the entire map, I would hardly say it is a problem, especially since people can rez you and almost always do in this new map.

Devata.6589:

skullmount.1758:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

SNIP

Your starting quote is actually false. “Everything there is subjective?”

No. Some of that was most definitely fact. It is a fact that less waypointing encourages exploration because it forces it. It is an observable fact that fewer waypoints increases the importance of revives. It is a fact that smaller maps spread the population less.

None of these are subjective qualities. To say otherwise is to not understand the definitions of subjective and objective.

Now, can you make a point that waypointing is efficient and convenient and that some players will prefer this style of gameplay? Yes. Yes you can. And balls to your efficiency; virtually every flaw with the game’s dungeon metas has been the direct result of players pursuing efficiency. There. Now THAT is subjective.

Less waypoints does and does not encourage/force exploration. Even with the waypoints that exist in the starting maps still required exploration. Exploration is only really good for the first time somewhere. Just because we have waypoints doesn’t mean there is no exploration. It just makes it easier to get back to someplace later on.

Less waypoints does and doesn’t make revives more important. If people are going to revive someone it doesn’t matter if there is a waypoint close or not (for the most part). Its up to the players (both reviver and revivee). Its the reviver’s choice whether or not to stop and revive someone or just keep going. Same with the revivee, its their choice to sit there and hope to get revived or waypoint and run back.

Running on a map to get to some way-points, PoI’s, vista’s and hearths is not what I consider exploring. What I consider exploring is going into a map, seeing something in the distance that gets your attention, going there to see what it is, maybe there is an NPC who gives you a quest telling something about him or the area and sending you eventually to another place. Along the way you see yet something else interesting so you check that out and so on, and so on.

So to that degree there is not exploring in GW2 at all, there is just checking of places you need to visit for map completion. But without the way-points at least you travel over the land seeing things you might have missed before and you would else never have seen again because you way-point skipping that area onces you run passed it before when running from one way-point to the next. So it gives a little more that feeling of exploring but more important it makes everything feel a bit more as one thing, one big world in stead of little islands where there is something to do for you.

But theres also the opposite of that. What if you died near the place you were going to? Then you’d have to run all the way back there and most likely have to hope to remember where you were and how you got there. At least having a waypoint close by means you don’t have to waste all that time running back there, and can get right back to exploring/getting to that point you want.

Devata.6589:

skullmount.1758:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

SNIP

Your starting quote is actually false. “Everything there is subjective?”

No. Some of that was most definitely fact. It is a fact that less waypointing encourages exploration because it forces it. It is an observable fact that fewer waypoints increases the importance of revives. It is a fact that smaller maps spread the population less.

None of these are subjective qualities. To say otherwise is to not understand the definitions of subjective and objective.

Now, can you make a point that waypointing is efficient and convenient and that some players will prefer this style of gameplay? Yes. Yes you can. And balls to your efficiency; virtually every flaw with the game’s dungeon metas has been the direct result of players pursuing efficiency. There. Now THAT is subjective.

Less waypoints does and does not encourage/force exploration. Even with the waypoints that exist in the starting maps still required exploration. Exploration is only really good for the first time somewhere. Just because we have waypoints doesn’t mean there is no exploration. It just makes it easier to get back to someplace later on.

Less waypoints does and doesn’t make revives more important. If people are going to revive someone it doesn’t matter if there is a waypoint close or not (for the most part). Its up to the players (both reviver and revivee). Its the reviver’s choice whether or not to stop and revive someone or just keep going. Same with the revivee, its their choice to sit there and hope to get revived or waypoint and run back.

Running on a map to get to some way-points, PoI’s, vista’s and hearths is not what I consider exploring. What I consider exploring is going into a map, seeing something in the distance that gets your attention, going there to see what it is, maybe there is an NPC who gives you a quest telling something about him or the area and sending you eventually to another place. Along the way you see yet something else interesting so you check that out and so on, and so on.

So to that degree there is not exploring in GW2 at all, there is just checking of places you need to visit for map completion. But without the way-points at least you travel over the land seeing things you might have missed before and you would else never have seen again because you way-point skipping that area onces you run passed it before when running from one way-point to the next. So it gives a little more that feeling of exploring but more important it makes everything feel a bit more as one thing, one big world in stead of little islands where there is something to do for you.

That’s the heart of it. Map completion isn’t exploring. A typical player going for map completion will simply brush past content, barely scratching the surface. They MIGHT discover about a fourth of what the game has to offer (events, unique mob concentrations, npc’s/dialogue, and simple sights that the developers put hard work into creating).

With the few-waypoint system, travel becomes a more active, time-consuming part of the play experience. “But isn’t that a bad thing?” No. Because, even on simple, typical brushes through terrain, players are bound to discover new objects of interest through repeated trips.

So yes, there is an encouraged exploration as a direct consequence of having fewer waypoints.

At the same time, I say that revives are encouraged because the importance of reviving is increased. Defending the fort becomes that much more difficult if you allow that player to die, as it will take much more time for said player to come back to your aid. This also increases the importance of preventatives (like healing) for the same reason.

Just wanted to post real quick that I really like the idea of one waypoint ( or scarce waypoints ) and what effects follow the set up. +1 Anet.

hydeaut.1758:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

hydeaut.1758:

And no waypoints make a tiny map feel big . . .

In attempting to refute his argument, you literally just explained why fewer waypoints is a perfect system.

I would rather say it´s a lazy system to artificially make tiny content look bigger – because a small map stays small, no matter what.

That´s also where your argument for exploration fails – one evening and I´ve seen it all, the single waypoint will stay as such though.

If you take the map as a self-contained entity, you’d be entirely correct. Your argument falls apart, however, when you consider the game as a complete entity.

How much intended landmass does this world have? We’re missing the Fire Island Chain, much of the Maguuma Jungle and Northern Kryta. We’re missing the Crystal Desert. The Desolation. The Northern Shiverpeaks. The Deldrimor Front. The Blood Legion Homelands. Most of the brand. The depths of Tyria. Chunks of Orr. AND THAT’S JUST TYRIA. We’re missing Cantha and Elona as well, and that’s just what we’ve experienced from Guild Wars 1. There are a multitude of entirely unexplored continents.

Now, given this, is it practical to flesh out all of these areas with a multitude of large zones? Absolutely not. We’ve already got a very severe case of community split. Each large map that is added only worsens the situation.

Smaller zones that are representative of a greater surface area of the world, on the other hand, allow for much greater expansion, as the developers gain a greater ability to expand to the unexplored regions of the world WITHOUT risking a playerbase that is spread to nigh-unplayable degrees.

THAT is why smaller zones are better and more reliable from a design standpoint. They are a form of “expansion insurance” for the world as a whole.

I like the lack of waypoints too. It makes the area feel more risky to explore, knowing if you get somewhere and die you’ll have to start over. My only real concern is, how will the area be once it’s not the newest area of the game anymore? I’d probably never go to cursed shore if it had one waypoint and those game mechanics, but as it is, I farm there alot.

I guess when there’s new stuff, that will be where everybody goes, so it won’t really matter because we’ll have new stuff to do. It’s just a thought.

INB4VideoOfSomeoneRunningFromWPToWestSideInUnderAMinute

i like the 1 WP idea for this map. This map is not anywhere near the size of EOTM and should not be compared to it in any way. I really do hope someone posts a video showing that you can get from one side of the map to the other in a minute

skullmount.1758:

Devata.6589:

skullmount.1758:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

SNIP

Your starting quote is actually false. “Everything there is subjective?”

No. Some of that was most definitely fact. It is a fact that less waypointing encourages exploration because it forces it. It is an observable fact that fewer waypoints increases the importance of revives. It is a fact that smaller maps spread the population less.

None of these are subjective qualities. To say otherwise is to not understand the definitions of subjective and objective.

Now, can you make a point that waypointing is efficient and convenient and that some players will prefer this style of gameplay? Yes. Yes you can. And balls to your efficiency; virtually every flaw with the game’s dungeon metas has been the direct result of players pursuing efficiency. There. Now THAT is subjective.

Less waypoints does and does not encourage/force exploration. Even with the waypoints that exist in the starting maps still required exploration. Exploration is only really good for the first time somewhere. Just because we have waypoints doesn’t mean there is no exploration. It just makes it easier to get back to someplace later on.

Less waypoints does and doesn’t make revives more important. If people are going to revive someone it doesn’t matter if there is a waypoint close or not (for the most part). Its up to the players (both reviver and revivee). Its the reviver’s choice whether or not to stop and revive someone or just keep going. Same with the revivee, its their choice to sit there and hope to get revived or waypoint and run back.

Running on a map to get to some way-points, PoI’s, vista’s and hearths is not what I consider exploring. What I consider exploring is going into a map, seeing something in the distance that gets your attention, going there to see what it is, maybe there is an NPC who gives you a quest telling something about him or the area and sending you eventually to another place. Along the way you see yet something else interesting so you check that out and so on, and so on.

So to that degree there is not exploring in GW2 at all, there is just checking of places you need to visit for map completion. But without the way-points at least you travel over the land seeing things you might have missed before and you would else never have seen again because you way-point skipping that area onces you run passed it before when running from one way-point to the next. So it gives a little more that feeling of exploring but more important it makes everything feel a bit more as one thing, one big world in stead of little islands where there is something to do for you.

But theres also the opposite of that. What if you died near the place you were going to? Then you’d have to run all the way back there and most likely have to hope to remember where you were and how you got there. At least having a waypoint close by means you don’t have to waste all that time running back there, and can get right back to exploring/getting to that point you want.

That is why they usually have mounts. But still that small convenient (I always said way-points are a form of conveniences and this is just an example of that (travel to places faster)) does imho not out-way the negatives.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Devata.6589:

skullmount.1758:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

SNIP

Your starting quote is actually false. “Everything there is subjective?”

No. Some of that was most definitely fact. It is a fact that less waypointing encourages exploration because it forces it. It is an observable fact that fewer waypoints increases the importance of revives. It is a fact that smaller maps spread the population less.

None of these are subjective qualities. To say otherwise is to not understand the definitions of subjective and objective.

Now, can you make a point that waypointing is efficient and convenient and that some players will prefer this style of gameplay? Yes. Yes you can. And balls to your efficiency; virtually every flaw with the game’s dungeon metas has been the direct result of players pursuing efficiency. There. Now THAT is subjective.

Less waypoints does and does not encourage/force exploration. Even with the waypoints that exist in the starting maps still required exploration. Exploration is only really good for the first time somewhere. Just because we have waypoints doesn’t mean there is no exploration. It just makes it easier to get back to someplace later on.

Less waypoints does and doesn’t make revives more important. If people are going to revive someone it doesn’t matter if there is a waypoint close or not (for the most part). Its up to the players (both reviver and revivee). Its the reviver’s choice whether or not to stop and revive someone or just keep going. Same with the revivee, its their choice to sit there and hope to get revived or waypoint and run back.

Running on a map to get to some way-points, PoI’s, vista’s and hearths is not what I consider exploring. What I consider exploring is going into a map, seeing something in the distance that gets your attention, going there to see what it is, maybe there is an NPC who gives you a quest telling something about him or the area and sending you eventually to another place. Along the way you see yet something else interesting so you check that out and so on, and so on.

So to that degree there is not exploring in GW2 at all, there is just checking of places you need to visit for map completion. But without the way-points at least you travel over the land seeing things you might have missed before and you would else never have seen again because you way-point skipping that area onces you run passed it before when running from one way-point to the next. So it gives a little more that feeling of exploring but more important it makes everything feel a bit more as one thing, one big world in stead of little islands where there is something to do for you.

That’s the heart of it. Map completion isn’t exploring. A typical player going for map completion will simply brush past content, barely scratching the surface. They MIGHT discover about a fourth of what the game has to offer (events, unique mob concentrations, npc’s/dialogue, and simple sights that the developers put hard work into creating).

With the few-waypoint system, travel becomes a more active, time-consuming part of the play experience. “But isn’t that a bad thing?” No. Because, even on simple, typical brushes through terrain, players are bound to discover new objects of interest through repeated trips.

So yes, there is an encouraged exploration as a direct consequence of having fewer waypoints.

At the same time, I say that revives are encouraged because the importance of reviving is increased. Defending the fort becomes that much more difficult if you allow that player to die, as it will take much more time for said player to come back to your aid. This also increases the importance of preventatives (like healing) for the same reason.

Yeah imho they could even take away the PoI’s. If a point is interesting is up to the up to the player.
The PoI’s make it more a place everybody runs by because they need it as part of the map-completion then a place people come across, explore and might find interesting. It also makes it more special to find that place if it’s not just a point on the map everybody runs to for map-completion. Doing it the current way simply creates a completely different mentality of playing then with not having way-points and PoI’s. With these things the mentality really becomes striping of a list of places on the maps you need to run by for your map completion in stead of having a exploration mentality where you really explore a map.

Devata.6589:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

Devata.6589:

skullmount.1758:

Duke Blackrose.4981:

SNIP

Your starting quote is actually false. “Everything there is subjective?”

No. Some of that was most definitely fact. It is a fact that less waypointing encourages exploration because it forces it. It is an observable fact that fewer waypoints increases the importance of revives. It is a fact that smaller maps spread the population less.

None of these are subjective qualities. To say otherwise is to not understand the definitions of subjective and objective.

Now, can you make a point that waypointing is efficient and convenient and that some players will prefer this style of gameplay? Yes. Yes you can. And balls to your efficiency; virtually every flaw with the game’s dungeon metas has been the direct result of players pursuing efficiency. There. Now THAT is subjective.

Less waypoints does and does not encourage/force exploration. Even with the waypoints that exist in the starting maps still required exploration. Exploration is only really good for the first time somewhere. Just because we have waypoints doesn’t mean there is no exploration. It just makes it easier to get back to someplace later on.

Less waypoints does and doesn’t make revives more important. If people are going to revive someone it doesn’t matter if there is a waypoint close or not (for the most part). Its up to the players (both reviver and revivee). Its the reviver’s choice whether or not to stop and revive someone or just keep going. Same with the revivee, its their choice to sit there and hope to get revived or waypoint and run back.

Running on a map to get to some way-points, PoI’s, vista’s and hearths is not what I consider exploring. What I consider exploring is going into a map, seeing something in the distance that gets your attention, going there to see what it is, maybe there is an NPC who gives you a quest telling something about him or the area and sending you eventually to another place. Along the way you see yet something else interesting so you check that out and so on, and so on.

So to that degree there is not exploring in GW2 at all, there is just checking of places you need to visit for map completion. But without the way-points at least you travel over the land seeing things you might have missed before and you would else never have seen again because you way-point skipping that area onces you run passed it before when running from one way-point to the next. So it gives a little more that feeling of exploring but more important it makes everything feel a bit more as one thing, one big world in stead of little islands where there is something to do for you.

That’s the heart of it. Map completion isn’t exploring. A typical player going for map completion will simply brush past content, barely scratching the surface. They MIGHT discover about a fourth of what the game has to offer (events, unique mob concentrations, npc’s/dialogue, and simple sights that the developers put hard work into creating).

With the few-waypoint system, travel becomes a more active, time-consuming part of the play experience. “But isn’t that a bad thing?” No. Because, even on simple, typical brushes through terrain, players are bound to discover new objects of interest through repeated trips.

So yes, there is an encouraged exploration as a direct consequence of having fewer waypoints.

At the same time, I say that revives are encouraged because the importance of reviving is increased. Defending the fort becomes that much more difficult if you allow that player to die, as it will take much more time for said player to come back to your aid. This also increases the importance of preventatives (like healing) for the same reason.

Yeah imho they could even take away the PoI’s. If a point is interesting is up to the up to the player.
The PoI’s make it more a place everybody runs by because they need it as part of the map-completion then a place people come across, explore and might find interesting. It also makes it more special to find that place if it’s not just a point on the map everybody runs to for map-completion. Doing it the current way simply creates a completely different mentality of playing then with not having way-points and PoI’s. With these things the mentality really becomes striping of a list of places on the maps you need to run by for your map completion in stead of having a exploration mentality where you really explore a map.

I don’t know if I’d go that far. I just think there should be way fewer POI’s. A point of interest should be an actual point of interest with a story behind it.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

I don’t know if I’d go that far. I just think there should be way fewer POI’s. A point of interest should be an actual point of interest with a story behind it.

Or at least have something of interest at that spot. I wouldn’t mind “hidden” POIs that, while they don’t count for map completion, mark places with chests, jumping puzzle entrances, and other goodies so that players remember to visit them.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

The lack of waypoints is good. I wish, however, that there were more merchants on the map. Managing inventory is kind of a pain.

Well you can always buy more Merchant Express from the Gem Store …

You know what would be convenient, if there was an NPC in every city that would freely hand out everything you want. Any item in the game you can get there. No need to earn it, extremely convenient and if that NPC would be put there today many people would go there. However it would also completely devaluate all items in the game and by doing that killing the game.

Not helpful.

So, to put it into other words. A normal GW2 map would be very boring and frustrating if you simply removed most of the WPs. Why? Because it would take too long to go anywhere, and for no meaningful reward and challenge. They are designed around the idea of efficiency: pick an event spot, WP there, do it. Exploration on foot is interesting the first time around, for collecting new WPs/ vistas/ etc. But after that, there’s not much to it, outside of the occasional, unreliable, random event.

Silverwastes is totally different.

That’s entirely subjective. I believe all those things about Silverwastes. Yes, there are more activities to do there than on some other maps, but not so many as you portray, since most events are focused around the forts. Taking the northern path out of the base, for example, you’ll find no events for most of your trip to Blue or Indigo, unless you come across a caravan, and caravan running is lame. If you had stuff going on at Blue or Amber, you want to get back to that stuff ASAP, not get distracted by random tasks along the way.

Also, if ANet EVER wants players to consider rezzing from defeated to be a viable option, then they need to speed it up considerably, and likely also give players an option of rezzing themselves without consumables (but slowly) if nobody else is around .

I could get behind this if and only if these waypoints required construction through upgrade tiers on the forts – as is the case with actual WvW.

I think this would be the worst of all worlds. It wouldn’t satisfy many of those who want WPs, since it’s something that would reset each round and take likely fifteen minutes or more to establish each time, and it would create the “WP rush” mentality that people have expressed concern over, people bopping from fort to fort as bosses come up. I think it’s better to just have one more point that is roughly equidistant between the furthest forts, allowing you to reach them faster than from the current WP, but far enough from each that it’s not much of a shortcut running from one to another.

So to that degree there is not exploring in GW2 at all, there is just checking of places you need to visit for map completion.

GW2 has plenty of exploration, there is plenty to see in the game that does not have any “map completion” goal to it.

i like the 1 WP idea for this map. This map is not anywhere near the size of EOTM and should not be compared to it in any way. I really do hope someone posts a video showing that you can get from one side of the map to the other in a minute

I hope so too, they’d get banned for whatever map exploit they were using to do so.

Heck, they could just put a waypoint midway somewhere and have one of the charrcopters hovering above/beside it, like its a airdrop instead or waypointing.

The lack of Waypoints is a design choice for the gameplay they were going for. They essentially wanted death and more specifically wipes at the forts to be meaningful instead of death rushing from the nearest waypoint to be the norm like pretty much every other event in the open world.

This makes you more dependent on other players in the region to stay alive and encourages you to stay together in each of the forts and Res anyone you see down in case you also go down.

You can argue with me that this isn’t gameplay you perfer but I will counter that in order to create the good gameplay people are praising now, they had to sacrifice the convience of nearby waypoint.

Most of the game spoils you with easy WP access, this is a level 80 zone, it make sense for them to add harsher elements to create more interesting gameplay.

Ohoni.6057:

Devata.6589:

You know what would be convenient, if there was an NPC in every city that would freely hand out everything you want. Any item in the game you can get there. No need to earn it, extremely convenient and if that NPC would be put there today many people would go there. However it would also completely devaluate all items in the game and by doing that killing the game.

Not helpful.

You know what would be really helpful? When you would quote correctly. (Fixed it for you in this post)

And it’s not a counter argument, it’s just an example to answer "Why would it be better to force other players to play the way you’d like when you have the option to play the way you like when they have the option. "

It does counter this part “The only thing it would accomplish is to take the other players desired play style away.” as the example shows that is accomplish other things. But its not to counter his complete reply.

While I did doubted for a moment if I would post it because I figured it might seem to come over that I countered a statement about it being a convenient while he did not bring that up (what would make it a Straw man). But then I figured people would be smart enough to see how it was an example to show what I just explained to you.

Oow and it has nothing to do with a ‘Reductio ad absurdum’ maybe you mean a Hyperbole ? Yes the example was a hyperbole but there is nothing wrong with that.

You can argue with me that this isn’t gameplay you perfer but I will counter that in order to create the good gameplay people are praising now, they had to sacrifice the convience of nearby waypoint.

Most of the game spoils you with easy WP access, this is a level 80 zone, it make sense for them to add harsher elements to create more interesting gameplay.

People keep saying WPs “spoil us,” which automatically has a prejudicial connotation. It’s not “spoiling us,” it’s just providing the most fun gameplay experience possible with minimal tedium.

Ohoni.6057:

You can argue with me that this isn’t gameplay you perfer but I will counter that in order to create the good gameplay people are praising now, they had to sacrifice the convience of nearby waypoint.

Most of the game spoils you with easy WP access, this is a level 80 zone, it make sense for them to add harsher elements to create more interesting gameplay.

People keep saying WPs “spoil us,” which automatically has a prejudicial connotation. It’s not “spoiling us,” it’s just providing the most fun gameplay experience possible with minimal tedium.

Not helpful.
Stating an opinion as a fact.

people need to see the bigger picture rather than picking out little things like Wp’s Spoil us..

Also Resing people form defeated is slow for one person (that isn’t stated for healing power) but when you include the max res amount vs resing a dead player if one or two of those players have some form of healing stat , it becomes Much much faster and also that player provides a safe area for other players to res that dead player.

this new content has done what it was ment to do Enrich the PvE content and provide people with the content to get them to think , content that makes you think is good content.

I liked it. It’s like a GW1 map.

Also Resing people form defeated is slow for one person (that isn’t stated for healing power) but when you include the max res amount vs resing a dead player if one or two of those players have some form of healing stat , it becomes Much much faster and also that player provides a safe area for other players to res that dead player.

Healing stat is irrelevant to rezzing speed, and there are not always other players within eyeshot, much less bunches of them, and if they are around, they are often too busy to bother healing a defeated player. Again, if they want us to be rezzing defeated players, then they need to make it faster.

No it does not encourage more exploring, because when you played the game for more then 2 years and have over 20 characters on two accounts then there is simply not a single rock in any region or map that you missed turning.
There is nothing i have not seen, no event i have not done and this even though there is wp on those maps.

When i play in a area i do not want to walk over and over to the other side of the map. That cost me time, i don’t have unlimited time, i am a mum so when a big part of my game time is about walking a path from point a to b with no other intentions then to reach point b, then it is not effective.

If people want to explore they can still do so. I done it with my characters and i believe that people will continue to do so even if there is more waypoints on the new map. And IF you are one of them that like to walk, then simply don’t use the waypoints.

At the moment we are fighting to claim and control the zone, and the single waypoint contributes well to the battlefield experience.

However, there are a few areas to the west blocked by vines. On the next step of the living story, as the Pact forces its way west, I imagine that the Silverwastes assaults will become less frequent, we will be given access to a new part of that zone, and in the newly available area there will be another waypoint.

Anet clearly has plans for us going forward.

BIRDPUNCHER.8263:

At the moment we are fighting to claim and control the zone, and the single waypoint contributes well to the battlefield experience.

However, there are a few areas to the west blocked by vines. On the next step of the living story, as the Pact forces its way west, I imagine that the Silverwastes assaults will become less frequent, we will be given access to a new part of that zone, and in the newly available area there will be another waypoint.

Anet clearly has plans for us going forward.

That makes the assumption that they are adding to this zone (as they did with Dry Top) rather than simply adding a new zone.

I, frankly, hope that they leave The Silverwastes as is and expand westward with more zones. Silverwastes is perfectly balanced for what it is, and expanding it would only risk ruining the great gameplay that it has.

Duke Blackrose.4981:

BIRDPUNCHER.8263:

At the moment we are fighting to claim and control the zone, and the single waypoint contributes well to the battlefield experience.

However, there are a few areas to the west blocked by vines. On the next step of the living story, as the Pact forces its way west, I imagine that the Silverwastes assaults will become less frequent, we will be given access to a new part of that zone, and in the newly available area there will be another waypoint.

Anet clearly has plans for us going forward.

That makes the assumption that they are adding to this zone (as they did with Dry Top) rather than simply adding a new zone.

I, frankly, hope that they leave The Silverwastes as is and expand westward with more zones. Silverwastes is perfectly balanced for what it is, and expanding it would only risk ruining the great gameplay that it has.

Even so, giving us a new, neighboring zone would mean another waypoint by the zone entrance.

Not a fan of the lack of WPs but …
1) I can see why there aren’t any considering the Mordrems’ attraction to them. Even after the adjustments there could still be risks.
2) They would probably be in the bases which means they’ll get contested 24/7 much like most of the WPs in Straits of Devastation.

At the moment we are fighting to claim and control the zone, and the single waypoint contributes well to the battlefield experience.

However, there are a few areas to the west blocked by vines. On the next step of the living story, as the Pact forces its way west, I imagine that the Silverwastes assaults will become less frequent, we will be given access to a new part of that zone, and in the newly available area there will be another waypoint.

Anet clearly has plans for us going forward.

Perhaps so, but even right now, today, there are not enough WPs, because getting back to Amber after a death is a serious pain.

Leaa.2943:

No it does not encourage more exploring, because when you played the game for more then 2 years and have over 20 characters on two accounts then there is simply not a single rock in any region or map that you missed turning.
There is nothing i have not seen, no event i have not done and this even though there is wp on those maps.

When i play in a area i do not want to walk over and over to the other side of the map. That cost me time, i don’t have unlimited time, i am a mum so when a big part of my game time is about walking a path from point a to b with no other intentions then to reach point b, then it is not effective.

If people want to explore they can still do so. I done it with my characters and i believe that people will continue to do so even if there is more waypoints on the new map. And IF you are one of them that like to walk, then simply don’t use the waypoints.

Oow I have also seen about everything. But it has never given me a true feeling of exploration. And taking away way-points would not mean taking away ways of fast travel. Fast travel points like trains or racing moa’s then bring you to specific places very fast or personal fast travel such as mounts would then be an option. That would of course still take a little longer then way-pointing but it’s not like walking everywhere. It’s somewhere in the middle. It’s also much more immersive then a loading screen.

If people are really afraid of spending to much time in a game MMO’s in general are not the best choice of games anyway.

Ohoni.6057:

At the moment we are fighting to claim and control the zone, and the single waypoint contributes well to the battlefield experience.

However, there are a few areas to the west blocked by vines. On the next step of the living story, as the Pact forces its way west, I imagine that the Silverwastes assaults will become less frequent, we will be given access to a new part of that zone, and in the newly available area there will be another waypoint.

Anet clearly has plans for us going forward.

Perhaps so, but even right now, today, there are not enough WPs, because getting back to Amber after a death is a serious pain.

So for once death means something in this game.. If you die it’s supposed to be a serious pain!

Seriously I don’t get why people can even come up with an argument like this.. Now death is unpleasant. Like if that should not be the point.
It shows something about the brainless, unpunished, zerg content much of the game has become and how many people have become used to that.
The problem is that even tho there might now be many people used to that, it tends to not be good material to keep things going for a long time. Also the people who now like the brainless, unpunished, zerg stuff will get tired of it.

If people are really afraid of spending to much time in a game MMO’s in general are not the best choice of games anyway.

This is a silly argument to make. If people are hear then they’re here for a reason, it’s not for you to diminish them because their reasons are different than your own.

Personally, I love to explore, but I also get bored of things quickly. Seeing something for the first time in a while can be magical, seeing it even the second time, meh. I enjoy actually playing this game quite a bit, but I really HATE “runbacks,” having to jog back to where I last died. If I want to travel on foot, I’ll travel on foot, and I imagine I do it more than most since I’m fairly stingy about WP costs, but ideally I’ll have the minimal “downtime” after falling in this game.

So for once death means something in this game.. If you die it’s supposed to be a serious pain!

Nah, never been a fan of that philosophy. Death’s just something that happens from time to time. Having to get repaired, having a reasonable run-back, these are reasonable penalties, but the current run-back to Amber is way too long. It’s not a Rogue-0like or anything, but it’s more onerous than it has to be.

It shows something about the brainless, unpunished, zerg content much of the game has become and how many people have become used to that.

Yeah, because they like it. Have you ever considered that perhaps the bulk of GW2 players are not “spoiled” by the game having convenient WPing, but rather that they play this game over others BECAUSE the game has convenient WPing? I mean, I doubt that alone is the number one reason for anyone, but I imagine more current GW2 players genuinely prefer it that way rather than otherwise.

This does not make them lesser beings than those that prefer harsh death penalties, it just makes them gamers that prefer different things from the game, that are more excited by fooling around in a fight than they are with the thrill of imminent death on a razor’s edge. Just understand that GW2 is the game that GW2 is, and the players of GW2 largely enjoy the game that GW2 is. They can change things as they go, but they need to be careful that they don’t change the things that the majority of players actually enjoy about the game.

No game can be for every player, and there are a lot of people on these forums that seem to insist that this game should be morphed into something it never was, and never claimed to be.