Guild Wars 2

Thge whole problem with this comparison is EotN was poor as well. Compared to what came before it, Eye was lackluster at best, and we would find out months later that the devs heart was already set on GW2.

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

DresdenAllblack.1249:

Thge whole problem with this comparison is EotN was poor as well. Compared to what came before it, Eye was lackluster at best, and we would find out months later that the devs heart was already set on GW2.

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

Those two are stand-alone campaigns that do not require the base game, Anet already told us the only expansion for GW1 is EoTN.

Says that HoT is luckluster, proceds to list a ton of content HotN hasn’t.
Kappa.

Also:
- armors are 4, you forgot the light/dark guild ones that you have to multiply by 5 because in GW1 there were only humans, in GW2 we have 5 races and, even if same “concept”, are still different models. Plus 1 heavy for revenant. Plus the incoming legendary armor (3 weights * 5 races = 15).
- you forgot 2 weapon sets: light/dark guild ones
- you forgot all the new content that will come in the month, that you paid with said expansion.

Ofc everybody has personal opinion, but all this it seemed well worth the price tag, ihmo.

Raziel.4216:

DresdenAllblack.1249:

Thge whole problem with this comparison is EotN was poor as well. Compared to what came before it, Eye was lackluster at best, and we would find out months later that the devs heart was already set on GW2.

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

Those two are stand-alone campaigns that do not require the base game, Anet already told us the only expansion for GW1 is EoTN.

You want to quibble over a word, let’s quibble over why that word should matter. Factions expanded what one could do in the game for those who already owned GW. It was the first pay-for offering by Anet which did so, just as HoT is the first pay-for offering that does so for GW2. Whether it was billed as campaign or expansion does not matter in the slightest.

That said, there are other reasons not to compare the two, but those would include EotN as well. Factions and EotN were produced with different technology, in a different market, in what was arguably a different age as far as games go. That should be ample reason to look at such comparisons with a jaundiced eye. No need to play word games with no substance.

DresdenAllblack.1249:

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

It’s easy to argue in its defense: I like HoT, it’s fun for me, there’s plenty of stuff to do, new stuff to try, new skins, & IMO, extends the life of GW2 just as well (if not better) as any add-ons to GW1 did for it.

In the end, no one really cares whether the add-on is an expansion, DLC or what. No one cares if there are 80 new zones or 1, 50 new profs or 5. All any of us really care about is whether it’s fun.

If you’re not enjoying the new content, there are no arguments that will change that for you. Maybe you liked the core game and the add-on didn’t extend it enough for you. Maybe you disliked the core game and the add-on didn’t make enough changes. Maybe you had 20 things on your wish list and the add-on only added one, so none of the other new things really matter (to you)

And of course, the same thing happened to GW1 with the introduction of Factions, of Nightfall, and EotN. Some people hated the gating (Prophecies allows you to do most missions out of order; it’s hard to get around in the other versions without doing so). Some people hated the addition of heroes or PvE skills. Some bemoaned the explosion of low-quality skills.

tl;dr when discussing personal opinions, there aren’t any “objective” ways to compare add-ons for MMOs (or really any game).

ye but HoT isnt about snow and norns so thats a huge plus

Illconceived Was Na.9781
DresdenAllblack.1249:
So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.
It’s easy to argue in its defense: I like HoT, it’s fun for me, there’s plenty of stuff to do, new stuff to try, new skins, & IMO, extends the life of GW2 just as well (if not better) as any add-ons to GW1 did for it.
In the end, no one really cares whether the add-on is an expansion, DLC or what. No one cares if there are 80 new zones or 1, 50 new profs or 5. All any of us really care about is whether it’s fun.
If you’re not enjoying the new content, there are no arguments that will change that for you. Maybe you liked the core game and the add-on didn’t extend it enough for you. Maybe you disliked the core game and the add-on didn’t make enough changes. Maybe you had 20 things on your wish list and the add-on only added one, so none of the other new things really matter (to you)
And of course, the same thing happened to GW1 with the introduction of Factions, of Nightfall, and EotN. Some people hated the gating (Prophecies allows you to do most missions out of order; it’s hard to get around in the other versions without doing so). Some people hated the addition of heroes or PvE skills. Some bemoaned the explosion of low-quality skills.
tl;dr when discussing personal opinions, there aren’t any “objective” ways to compare add-ons for MMOs (or really any game).

I agree with everything Na, but with GW1 I didn’t have this sense of deflation from the game until EotN. With GW2 it came with their first expansion. Left feeling a bit betrayed being with the game so long.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

You forgot to write ‘so far’ on the HoT side of the equation.
Once it is complete (as EoTN is), it will be more equitable to compare them.

This is true. Though I find myself saying a similar thing about HoT as I say about the new Star Wars: It’s a passable start, but they really need to step up their game a lot to live up to the expectations and demands of their fanbase. They need to realize they have a long way to go and a lot to do, and then be sure to do it.

the problem with some people today is they obsess over the details in isolation ‘omg feature x doesn’t suit my personal needs i need to complain online’’ they don’t look at the game as a complete product because they don’t get it about large cohesive gameworlds. The roots of this issue comes from a generation used to playing single player or selfish mmo style shooters etc here instant gratification is > all. In reality they are playing a mmorpg when that game genre has always been niche and they are probably not a natural customer of that niche. Tied with a self entitled mentality we all know well and you get poison.

Put it another way, some people play in a virtual world and appreciate diversity and quality with an open mind even though they don’t enjoy and avoid the content they don’t like, others well thy don’t do they.

Almighty Dervisher.6720:

Heart of Thorns is a very lackluster Expansion. When we look back at the original Guild Wars Expansions, we can really see why HoT is an insult to the old playerbase. In this comparison, Heart of Thorns will be on the left, while Eye of the North will be on the right.. We’ll use a ratio(colon) to compare what the Expansions have in common, and include what each Expansion offers that is different from the other.

1. EotN didn’t add any real new systems; HoT did. By that I mean, for example, the mastery system and the elite specialization systems. These weren’t simply additions for this one expansion, but a framework for more expansions to come.

2. These maps are FAR more complex than EotN was. As in, ever. Don’t even kid yourself. YES, there are less maps, and if I were to be honest I wish there were a few more, but you can’t simply compare the mapcount when HoT maps are far more complex, vertical, and intricate. It’s more complicated than that.

3. I’ll be the first one to say HoT isn’t perfect and there were some things I wish were different. But it is nowhere near as bad as you make it sound. Really, there are a lot of people enjoying this “insult” of an expansion. Maybe you need to go teach them how they are having badwrongfun. Heck, I’m enjoying it too. Am I having badwrongfun?

4. But really, why are you even here? I just don’t fathom how people here who talk about how Hot in specific and now GW2 in general sucks so bad… and yet, still you are all here. Me, if I think a game is no longer worthy, you know what I do? I go play a different game. I don’t sit here making sure to post just how much I think the game sucks and how wrong everyone else must be if they disagree with me. You see, I realize that each person is entitled to their opinions, that they may disagree with me, and that’s perfectly ok. If I don’t like it, I just go elsewhere. Simple.

And yet, others, the “black knights” if you will, seem to actually be on some quest to make sure that not only do they have to tell everyone how unhappy they are, but that they have to PROVE that their POV is correct and, if you disagree, you are WRONG. Seriously man, just go play something you enjoy and stop wasting your time here if you are so unhappy. What do you and the other black knights hope to gain with all this shaking of fists in the forums?

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

DresdenAllblack.1249:

Thge whole problem with this comparison is EotN was poor as well. Compared to what came before it, Eye was lackluster at best, and we would find out months later that the devs heart was already set on GW2.

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

Those two are stand-alone campaigns that do not require the base game, Anet already told us the only expansion for GW1 is EoTN.

You want to quibble over a word, let’s quibble over why that word should matter. Factions expanded what one could do in the game for those who already owned GW. It was the first pay-for offering by Anet which did so, just as HoT is the first pay-for offering that does so for GW2. Whether it was billed as campaign or expansion does not matter in the slightest.

That said, there are other reasons not to compare the two, but those would include EotN as well. Factions and EotN were produced with different technology, in a different market, in what was arguably a different age as far as games go. That should be ample reason to look at such comparisons with a jaundiced eye. No need to play word games with no substance.

You could own factions without having any other game, if I have factions and add the base game, did prophecies just become an expansion?
Expansions always add less than a game, require a base game to play, and usually improve on the end-game, like EoTN and any other MMO expansion out there.
Factions/Nightfall could be played without the base game and you could start new characters from scratch.
Go to the steams sales page, the only one that requires a base game and is labelled as an expansion is EoTN.
So, if it fails to meet the criteria when compared to any other expansion, if the company doesn’t call it an expansion, if the platform where you buy it doesn’t call it an expansion then it probably isn’t an expansion.
Unless you know better than the devs themselves ofc.

Raziel.4216:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

DresdenAllblack.1249:

Thge whole problem with this comparison is EotN was poor as well. Compared to what came before it, Eye was lackluster at best, and we would find out months later that the devs heart was already set on GW2.

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

Those two are stand-alone campaigns that do not require the base game, Anet already told us the only expansion for GW1 is EoTN.

You want to quibble over a word, let’s quibble over why that word should matter. Factions expanded what one could do in the game for those who already owned GW. It was the first pay-for offering by Anet which did so, just as HoT is the first pay-for offering that does so for GW2. Whether it was billed as campaign or expansion does not matter in the slightest.

That said, there are other reasons not to compare the two, but those would include EotN as well. Factions and EotN were produced with different technology, in a different market, in what was arguably a different age as far as games go. That should be ample reason to look at such comparisons with a jaundiced eye. No need to play word games with no substance.

You could own factions without having any other game, if I have factions and add the base game, did prophecies just become an expansion?
Expansions always add less than a game, require a base game to play, and usually improve on the end-game, like EoTN and any other MMO expansion out there.
Factions/Nightfall could be played without the base game and you could start new characters from scratch.
Go to the steams sales page, the only one that requires a base game and is labelled as an expansion is EoTN.
So, if it fails to meet the criteria when compared to any other expansion, if the company doesn’t call it an expansion, if the platform where you buy it doesn’t call it an expansion then it probably isn’t an expansion.
Unless you know better than the devs themselves ofc.

Nice exposition. Too bad you ignored my point completely. I’m not lobbying to call Factions an expansion. I’m saying that for purposes of comparison between two second offerings by the same company, which build on the first offering, the distinction is window dressing.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

DresdenAllblack.1249:

Thge whole problem with this comparison is EotN was poor as well. Compared to what came before it, Eye was lackluster at best, and we would find out months later that the devs heart was already set on GW2.

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

Those two are stand-alone campaigns that do not require the base game, Anet already told us the only expansion for GW1 is EoTN.

You want to quibble over a word, let’s quibble over why that word should matter. Factions expanded what one could do in the game for those who already owned GW. It was the first pay-for offering by Anet which did so, just as HoT is the first pay-for offering that does so for GW2. Whether it was billed as campaign or expansion does not matter in the slightest.

That said, there are other reasons not to compare the two, but those would include EotN as well. Factions and EotN were produced with different technology, in a different market, in what was arguably a different age as far as games go. That should be ample reason to look at such comparisons with a jaundiced eye. No need to play word games with no substance.

You could own factions without having any other game, if I have factions and add the base game, did prophecies just become an expansion?
Expansions always add less than a game, require a base game to play, and usually improve on the end-game, like EoTN and any other MMO expansion out there.
Factions/Nightfall could be played without the base game and you could start new characters from scratch.
Go to the steams sales page, the only one that requires a base game and is labelled as an expansion is EoTN.
So, if it fails to meet the criteria when compared to any other expansion, if the company doesn’t call it an expansion, if the platform where you buy it doesn’t call it an expansion then it probably isn’t an expansion.
Unless you know better than the devs themselves ofc.

Nice exposition. Too bad you ignored my point completely. I’m not lobbying to call Factions an expansion. I’m saying that for purposes of comparison between two second offerings by the same company, which build on the first offering, the distinction is window dressing.

The second offering by Anet in GW1 was a standalone campaign that could be linked to the preexisting campaign for added benefits.
The second offering by Anet in GW2 was an expansion.
Comparing both makes no sense.
Stand-alone game vs expansion.

Raziel.4216:

The second offering by Anet in GW1 was a standalone campaign that could be linked to the preexisting campaign for added benefits.
The second offering by Anet in GW2 was an expansion.
Comparing both makes no sense.
Stand-alone game vs expansion.

Comparing any two add-ons is never very useful, since it’s entirely a matter of preference. If Add-On A has stuff you like, you’ll prefer it over Add-On B with 25 times more things that you dislike.

EotN has a short campaign, no new profs, and requires tons of grinding for the ‘optimum’ special skills and HoT has a short story, one new prof, and requires tons of grinding for shiny skins. That makes them sound really similar, when the reality is: the OP loved EotN and dislikes HoT. Others love HoT and thought EotN was meh.

It only makes sense to compare games (or add-ons or whatever) when you want to help articulate your own preferences; such comparisons are never objective.

maddoctor.2738:

I made a more complete comparison in another thread (or rather an actual comparison since yours isn’t comparing anything)

The comparision in this thread here is way better than yours.

Just to give you some of the most obvious examples: you count waypoints in GW2. In GW there were no waypoints. When you are dead you are automatically revived at rezz shrine. In GW2 you get revived at a WP.
But for some reason you didn’t counted the amount of rezz shrines. GW EoTN has alone about 150 rezz shrines if you leave half of the dungeons out – so maybe even 200. This alone screws the numbers so badly up.
Those numbers are several hundred percents away from truth. Even when you ignore the fact that comparing simple POIs to complete towns is so obviously ridiculus. So Rata Sum is worth a POI?
You count skill unlocks in HoT, but not in EoTN (there are ~150 possible – but not necessary – skill unlock options in EoTN). EoTN has nothing which can be compared to POIs or Vistas, you would have to leave them out. But you didn’t tried to find out the amount of landmarks in HoT (two? idk).

And I think every player who knows both games well enough would disagree on that skill comparision. 150 new skills available on all classes add a bit more new playstyles to a game than ~15 new skills per class. And those skills are different from GW2 skills, they are made to combine them. Which changed their functionality dramatically. For example this: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4sk6t_spike-dark-aura-bug-exploit_videogames
All Skills did what they were intended to do. The combination of them was fixed quite fast (added a recast to deathnova afaik).

Skins: you compare the amount of work Anet has to do to create those skins. A player can’t chose all skins on his main. The amount of skins he can choose of is smaller. And thats what matters to most players. Not the amount of work Anet has to do.

—>
The best comparision is your personal feeling. You can’t make an objective comparision. Some people don’t like open world zergs and prefer to have huge easy maps to explore. Or like instanced teamcontent. I prefer instanced teamcontent, so I like EoTN more than HoT. But thats my personal feeling.
EoTN was released 2007, but I kept playing until GW2 was released.
I doubt I would be still playing GW2 in 2021 when Anet would stop releasing content now. An important factor for me was and is instanced teamcontent, GW2 has little of it.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Raziel.4216:

The second offering by Anet in GW1 was a standalone campaign that could be linked to the preexisting campaign for added benefits.
The second offering by Anet in GW2 was an expansion.
Comparing both makes no sense.
Stand-alone game vs expansion.

Comparing any two add-ons is never very useful, since it’s entirely a matter of preference. If Add-On A has stuff you like, you’ll prefer it over Add-On B with 25 times more things that you dislike.

EotN has a short campaign, no new profs, and requires tons of grinding for the ‘optimum’ special skills and HoT has a short story, one new prof, and requires tons of grinding for shiny skins. That makes them sound really similar, when the reality is: the OP loved EotN and dislikes HoT. Others love HoT and thought EotN was meh.

It only makes sense to compare games (or add-ons or whatever) when you want to help articulate your own preferences; such comparisons are never objective.

Now those are reasons that comparisons are flawed. Not the ersatz reason that one’s an “expansion” and one’s a “campaign.” So bloody what. They’re both game products.

As for my comparison. I had more fun in EotN, but I’ve only had Hot for three weeks — it might catch up.

LOL, more valid than one’s a full game and one’s an add-on.
Let’s compare D2: LoD with D3 next, or D3: RoS with D2 next.

Raziel.4216:

LOL, more valid than one’s a full game and one’s an add-on.
Let’s compare D2: LoD with D3 next, or D3: RoS with D2 next.

Factions was both an add-on and a stand-alone game. It used the same engine, many of the same skills, the same classes and the same mechanics. So what if it had a leveling area. That invalidates comparison? Maybe in the minds of those looking for reasons to be dismissive.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

DresdenAllblack.1249:

Thge whole problem with this comparison is EotN was poor as well. Compared to what came before it, Eye was lackluster at best, and we would find out months later that the devs heart was already set on GW2.

So I do not care if HoT stacks up, they both still lack. HoT should be compared to Factions or BC or any other ‘first’ expansion. When compared to any of those its hard to argue in its defense.

Those two are stand-alone campaigns that do not require the base game, Anet already told us the only expansion for GW1 is EoTN.

You want to quibble over a word, let’s quibble over why that word should matter. Factions expanded what one could do in the game for those who already owned GW. It was the first pay-for offering by Anet which did so, just as HoT is the first pay-for offering that does so for GW2. Whether it was billed as campaign or expansion does not matter in the slightest.

That said, there are other reasons not to compare the two, but those would include EotN as well. Factions and EotN were produced with different technology, in a different market, in what was arguably a different age as far as games go. That should be ample reason to look at such comparisons with a jaundiced eye. No need to play word games with no substance.

And yet a whole lot of people hated Factions. Factions was too fast. Too little story. They compared it to the base game and said it sucked. Half the story missions. Leveling too fast.

The Nightfall came out and people complained endlessly about heroes being introduced.

There really is no gold bullet. People complained about all those expansions too.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

LOL, more valid than one’s a full game and one’s an add-on.
Let’s compare D2: LoD with D3 next, or D3: RoS with D2 next.

Factions was both an add-on and a stand-alone game. It used the same engine, many of the same skills, the same classes and the same mechanics. So what if it had a leveling area. That invalidates comparison? Maybe in the minds of those looking for reasons to be dismissive.

Such as the devs who made the game? the very definition of expansion? or the comparisson with any other expansion out there?
Ah let’s ignore the ones who made’em, we know better right?

Jockum.1385:

The comparision in this thread here is way better than yours.

No it’s not. Mine is an actual comparison, the OP’s isn’t I think that was already done.

The best comparision is your personal feeling. You can’t make an objective comparision.

Say that to the OP and people like the OP who make threads like this. It’s so ridiculous that you and many other people on this thread only care to point out my analysis of both games and not the OP. I didn’t start the thread, and I didn’t start ANY thread on this subject using my analysis, yet you only care to prove me wrong (and my analysis) and not the OP, who also tried to compare the two games in a false way.

Maybe it’s because the OP makes GW1 look better than GW2 but I make GW2 look better than GW1? Maybe that’s the only reason you even cared to answer.

And about your “additions” just because GW2 has more races doesn’t mean it has LESS choice, it has MORE choice.

And 15 skills per class is false, there are way more new skills added to the game. Why are people only adding the utility ones?

Resurrection shrines are near all the entrance of each map, that’s like adding the same map multiple times for exploration for no reason.

I could also add the amount of gathering nodes in GW2, I mean some of them clearly are exploration items (flax farms) how many of those are on HoT maps???

Why do you not wait until HoT is completely released in order to obtain a proper comparison? At the moment we have only a very preliminary database for a comparison.

End of 2016 or 2017 we will have a much cleaerer image how big HoT really is.

vesica tempestas.1563:

the problem with some people today is they obsess over the details in isolation ‘omg feature x doesn’t suit my personal needs i need to complain online’’ they don’t look at the game as a complete product because they don’t get it about large cohesive gameworlds. The roots of this issue comes from a generation used to playing single player or selfish mmo style shooters etc here instant gratification is > all. In reality they are playing a mmorpg when that game genre has always been niche and they are probably not a natural customer of that niche. Tied with a self entitled mentality we all know well and you get poison.

Guild Wars account is about 8 1/4 years old. This kind of invalidates your entire paragraph. I’ve had over double the experience in Guild Wars 1 compared to Guild Wars 2, and i’d personally prefer to continue in GW1. Unfortunately, after the tragedy of the nerf hammer to my favorite profession, the character is no longer enjoyable to play.

maddoctor.2738:

I didn’t start the thread, and I didn’t start ANY thread on this subject using my analysis, yet you only care to prove me wrong (and my analysis) and not the OP, who also tried to compare the two games in a false way.

You also didn’t care to prove the threadstartet wrong. You only did care to bring your completly flawed comparision. So we both are sitting in the same boat.
I don’t agree on each aspect of the threadstarters comparision, but I agree on the conclusion. So it doesn’t bother me enough to give an answer to it.

And about your “additions” just because GW2 has more races doesn’t mean it has LESS choice, it has MORE choice.

My main is a human male. How many armour choices do I have in HoT for him? How many armour choices do I have in EoTN for my male human main? That’s what matters to me. I don’t care about the amount of skins for female charrs, i’ve got no female charr.
That’s why I was talking about players perspective. From Anets point of view your comparision of skins is true. But that doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care if Anet needs years to implement a very complex quest. When it takes me 5 minutes to do it, it isn’t worth 50€ to me. Even if it is more work for Anet than the whole GW2 universe.

And 15 skills per class is false, there are way more new skills added to the game. Why are people only adding the utility ones?

Because that are the skills you’re active using. A “+5%” dmg mod doesn’t change your gameplay. It’s a bit about “unique actions happening when you push a button”.
It’s impossible to compare both systems. GW2 weapons have fixed skills. If you could combine every weapons skill with another one (for example guardians GS whirl and warriors 100bs) the amount of skills would still be the same. But this would create an insane amount of build variety. In GW1 you can do this. For example bunnythumpers make use of warriors hammer attacks combining them with ranger pet attacks and buffs. In GW2 you got traits and more complex runes and sigils.
In the end I think you would have to compare builds. Unique builds, not the same build whith one switched skill or trait. You would have to leave farmbuilds, funbuilds etc. out and just count “meta” or close to metabuilds. Like, for example, necro healers in GW1. All I can say about build variety in GW2 is: I’m using maybe 3-5 builds per class in GW2. Thats not much.

Resurrection shrines are near all the entrance of each map, that’s like adding the same map multiple times for exploration for no reason.

When you want to make a comparision you have to search for similiar stuff which can be compared. That’s where your “comparision” fails.
When you want to compare stuff you always have to check if your comparing comparable stuff. When there is nothing which is comparable you can’t compare that aspect. That’s why comparisions are very difficult. Often you will have to wight stuff, because its is compareable and similar, but not the same. How many POIs is an outpost worth? 10? 20? So multiply the amount of outposts with it.
Thats happening for example when inflation is measured. Bread is more important than a rolex, so the inflation relates more to price changes of bread than of rolex clocks.

Rezz shrines have the same functionality as waypoints.
If you want to compare waypoints to anything in EoTN you should go for rezzshrines.
Or you leave waypoints out, because there is no such thing in EoTN.
Btw: waypoints in GW2 are also usually close to map entrances.

There is no such thing as a vista or POI in EoTN so you have to leave them out, too.
There is no such thing as a hero challenge. So its a 0:0.

Jockum.1385:

You also didn’t care to prove the threadstartet wrong. You only did care to bring your completly flawed comparision. So we both are sitting in the same boat.

I did because I gave a more complete comparison. Or actually I did make a comparison while he didn’t.

I don’t agree on each aspect of the threadstarters comparision, but I agree on the conclusion. So it doesn’t bother me enough to give an answer to it.

So you only chose to answer to it because it made GW1 look worse than GW2 and everything else you said about it is completely irrelevant. Good to know. Then re-read your own post and take your own advice.

My main is a human male. How many armour choices do I have in HoT for him? How many armour choices do I have in EoTN for my male human main? That’s what matters to me. I don’t care about the amount of skins for female charrs, i’ve got no female charr.

And how does that make an actual comparison between game features? Hint: it doesn’t. You either try to be objective or you are not. Counting skin count is actually objective, any kind of counting you are doing is not in any way or form. What you care or not about isn’t an objective comparison, while comparing the amount of actual different skins in both games is maybe one of the very few actually OBJECTIVE ways to compare them.

In the end I think you would have to compare builds. Unique builds, not the same build whith one switched skill or trait.

Once again, counting the number of skill buttons you can have in a game is a more objective way of comparing them than using “builds”.

When you want to make a comparision you have to search for similiar stuff which can be compared. That’s where your “comparision” fails.

I always try to compare comparable stuff and my comparison didn’t fail at all, especially when you count skills and skins which was 100% accurate. Sure other than skins and skills it is a bit more blurry. But please take your own advice before you post again.

Rezz shrines have the same functionality as waypoints.

Not even close. You can’t port to them last I checked.

Raziel.4216:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

LOL, more valid than one’s a full game and one’s an add-on.
Let’s compare D2: LoD with D3 next, or D3: RoS with D2 next.

Factions was both an add-on and a stand-alone game. It used the same engine, many of the same skills, the same classes and the same mechanics. So what if it had a leveling area. That invalidates comparison? Maybe in the minds of those looking for reasons to be dismissive.

Such as the devs who made the game? the very definition of expansion? or the comparisson with any other expansion out there?
Ah let’s ignore the ones who made’em, we know better right?

I’m not stating that Factions was an expansion, even though it has some things in common with expansions. If you choose to respond again, consider that fact first. You’ve yet to provide a single reason why a comparison between GW2: HoT and GW: Factions is invalid. Clue: “Because one is an expansion and the other isn’t” is not a valid reason. That’s the issue I’m talking about, not some kittening contest over the word expansion.

@ Vayne: We’re not discussing the merits of Factions v. HoT at all, just whether there can even be a comparison. Of course there can, but it looks like this poster is determined to hold onto the fallacy that because playing Factions did not require one to own GW and had a leveling area, that no comparison is possible.

Jockum.1385:

For example bunnythumpers make use of warriors hammer attacks combining them with ranger pet attacks and buffs. In GW2 you got traits and more complex runes and sigils.

Hah, thank you for reminding me of the bunnythumper warriors. That was a great build. That kind of variety shows how rich Guild Wars pvp is. As much as it was about teamwork, it was also about who was creative enough with their builds to throw the opponent off guard.

maddoctor.2738:

So you only chose to answer to it because it made GW1 look worse than GW2 and everything else you said about it is completely irrelevant.

No, I only answered because your “comparision” is so flawed i wanted to give users who don’t know GW1 the info that your “comparision” is completly flawed.

maddoctor.2738:

And how does that make an actual comparison between game features?

Comparisions have a very limited use. To compare the amount of work for Anet is nice to know. That’s what you did.
Players interested in a comparision of skins available to them don’t care about your comparision. Because it has nothing to do with your comparision.
Your skin comparision is correct afaik. But is has no value to players who care about creating a unique look on a char. That would be a different comparision. Your comparision has a very limited meaning. Your comparing the amount of work. Not the amount of skins a player can choose from.
You can make an objective comparision “a player with one char can choose from X skins” “a player with two chars chan choose from Y skins”. Would also be objective.
As you can see: its not about being objective or not. Its about knowing the meaning and limits of a comparision.

maddoctor.2738:

Once again, counting the number of skill buttons you can have in a game is a more objective way of comparing them than using “builds”.

With a very limited meaning. 182 skills vs 150 total.
But true is also that we got with HoT ~20 skills per character while EoTN offers 150 per character. That’s also objective. As you can see: you can also be objective but have a different point of view.
It’s subjective which version has more meaning to you. 150 available new skills on each of your characters and a total of 150 skills. Or a total of 182 skills and a ~20 skills per character.

maddoctor.2738:

Not even close. You can’t port to them last I checked.

So you’re saying you can’t compare them because they got different features?
But why did you then choose to compare vistas and POIs? They got different features, you can’t sum them up. You can’t press F at a POI. There are no Vistas in EoTN, why do you compare them to outposts? You can’t press F at an outpost.
So your comparision is “HoT has XY teleporters, EoTN has none”.
And I can answer “EoTN has XYZ rezz shrines, HoT has none”.
This has a very limited meaning. But don’t try to cover this up by mixing it with other numbers.
You can try to give reasons why X can be compared to Y. But it is subjective then. You can try to give an accurate number by saying “a rezzshrine is worth half a wp”. You get a number at the end. But ofc its not objective anymore. Your comparision consists of subjective picked parts compared to other non comparable subjective parts. It is highly subjective. Numbers seem to be objective, but they aren’t.
As you can see with my skill examples. Two objective versions of a comparision. But is subjective which you decide to choose.

Jockum.1385:

maddoctor.2738:

So you only chose to answer to it because it made GW1 look worse than GW2 and everything else you said about it is completely irrelevant.

No, I only answered because your “comparision” is so flawed i wanted to give users who don’t know GW1 the info that your “comparision” is completly flawed.

My comparison is completely fine though and you failed to explain why you think it’s flawed.

Players interested in a comparision of skins available to them don’t care about your comparision. Because it has nothing to do with your comparision.

On the contrary. First you talk about players you don’t know about GW1 and now you say my comparison isn’t useful to them? How useful are all those different armor sets of GW1 if you haven’t played GW1? Completely useless. It’s funny though you are talking about Charr armor that you don’t care about, I never cared about Dervish and Assassin armors, should I remove them from my counting? What would that serve? When you compare something you do it so it benefits the general reader, not someone with an agenda like yourself.

Your comparision has a very limited meaning.

No. My comparison is an ACTUAL comparison between game features and for skins and skills it can OBJECTIVELY be done and that’s what I did.

But true is also that we got with HoT ~20 skills per character while EoTN offers 150 per character. That’s also objective. As you can see: you can also be objective but have a different point of view.
It’s subjective which version has more meaning to you. 150 available new skills on each of your characters and a total of 150 skills. Or a total of 182 skills and a ~20 skills per character.

No. The amount of clicks is one and it’s. HoT: 418, EotN: 150. That’s an actual OBJECTIVE comparison of skill clicks between games. You are trying to twist it and say it’s not but your logic is flawed.

So you’re saying you can’t compare them because they got different features?

Then I should add all the resource node spawns as well. Let’s see which game has more “features”

And please I will repeat take your own advice.

Almighty Dervisher.6720:

vesica tempestas.1563:

the problem with some people today is they obsess over the details in isolation ‘omg feature x doesn’t suit my personal needs i need to complain online’’ they don’t look at the game as a complete product because they don’t get it about large cohesive gameworlds. The roots of this issue comes from a generation used to playing single player or selfish mmo style shooters etc here instant gratification is > all. In reality they are playing a mmorpg when that game genre has always been niche and they are probably not a natural customer of that niche. Tied with a self entitled mentality we all know well and you get poison.

Guild Wars account is about 8 1/4 years old. This kind of invalidates your entire paragraph. I’ve had over double the experience in Guild Wars 1 compared to Guild Wars 2, and i’d personally prefer to continue in GW1. Unfortunately, after the tragedy of the nerf hammer to my favorite profession, the character is no longer enjoyable to play.

I also have about double the amount of time in Guild Wars 1 than I do in Guild Wars 2, and in some ways Guild Wars 1 was a better game for me…but over all Guild Wars 2 is a better game for me.

The biggest problem I have with Guild Wars 1 was pathing, followed by no trading post or auction house. I’ll never go back to a game where I have to stand around hawking my wares in Spamadan.

So you know, that paragraph aside, both games have their advantages. Not everyone is going to like one or the other better.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

LOL, more valid than one’s a full game and one’s an add-on.
Let’s compare D2: LoD with D3 next, or D3: RoS with D2 next.

Factions was both an add-on and a stand-alone game. It used the same engine, many of the same skills, the same classes and the same mechanics. So what if it had a leveling area. That invalidates comparison? Maybe in the minds of those looking for reasons to be dismissive.

Such as the devs who made the game? the very definition of expansion? or the comparisson with any other expansion out there?
Ah let’s ignore the ones who made’em, we know better right?

I’m not stating that Factions was an expansion, even though it has some things in common with expansions. If you choose to respond again, consider that fact first. You’ve yet to provide a single reason why a comparison between GW2: HoT and GW: Factions is invalid. Clue: “Because one is an expansion and the other isn’t” is not a valid reason. That’s the issue I’m talking about, not some kittening contest over the word expansion.

@ Vayne: We’re not discussing the merits of Factions v. HoT at all, just whether there can even be a comparison. Of course there can, but it looks like this poster is determined to hold onto the fallacy that because playing Factions did not require one to own GW and had a leveling area, that no comparison is possible.

Well here’s the problem with the comparison, having nothing to do with it being an expansion. Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO and Guild Wars 2 is. That means a whole lot more time being spent on stuff you didn’t really have to worry about in Guild Wars 1.

In many ways, Guild Wars 1 was just a lobby game. You met in an outpost, you got your party together, and you went out into the world. A lot of the strengths of that game are built around the fact that you knew exactly how big parties were likely to be. You had heroes. You could have heroes and henchmen, as an example, because that still meant 8 people in an instance. Could you imagine the lag if everyone had seven heroes here?

So comparing a lobby game expansion to an MMO expansion isn’t really something that’s all that fair.

Then you have to take into account the fact that there was no Z axis and a lot of stuff was pathed. That makes creating the game much easier as well. It was faster to create the maps used in Guild Wars 1. You can compare them all you like but I firmly believe that making maps for GW 1 was far simpler than making maps for Guild Wars 2. That these maps take far longer.

And dynamic events are harder to write and you need more of them than traditional quests.

There are so many differences between the games, from being an MMO to having a Z axis, to not pathing everything to not having traditional quests, to having things scale, to having a trading post, that Guild Wars 1 really didn’t have to worry about.

Sure you can compare the games. But you’re comparing games from different times, of different complexities, and even different types of games.

The only thing these games really have in common is the world they’re set in and the company that makes them. Beyond that, I’m 100% sure that Guild Wars 2 requires far more work to create content for.

Vayne.8563:

no trading post or auction house. I’ll never go back to a game where I have to stand around hawking my wares in Spamadan.
.

whatt??!!! Must be crazy. Gw1 had a far more stable economy because people had to stop to sell. You also didn’t have deal with constant global undercutting to the point where you just merch everything. gw2 recipes had to be revamped just to have value.

Vayne.8563:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

LOL, more valid than one’s a full game and one’s an add-on.
Let’s compare D2: LoD with D3 next, or D3: RoS with D2 next.

Factions was both an add-on and a stand-alone game. It used the same engine, many of the same skills, the same classes and the same mechanics. So what if it had a leveling area. That invalidates comparison? Maybe in the minds of those looking for reasons to be dismissive.

Such as the devs who made the game? the very definition of expansion? or the comparisson with any other expansion out there?
Ah let’s ignore the ones who made’em, we know better right?

I’m not stating that Factions was an expansion, even though it has some things in common with expansions. If you choose to respond again, consider that fact first. You’ve yet to provide a single reason why a comparison between GW2: HoT and GW: Factions is invalid. Clue: “Because one is an expansion and the other isn’t” is not a valid reason. That’s the issue I’m talking about, not some kittening contest over the word expansion.

@ Vayne: We’re not discussing the merits of Factions v. HoT at all, just whether there can even be a comparison. Of course there can, but it looks like this poster is determined to hold onto the fallacy that because playing Factions did not require one to own GW and had a leveling area, that no comparison is possible.

Well here’s the problem with the comparison, having nothing to do with it being an expansion. Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO and Guild Wars 2 is. That means a whole lot more time being spent on stuff you didn’t really have to worry about in Guild Wars 1.

In many ways, Guild Wars 1 was just a lobby game. You met in an outpost, you got your party together, and you went out into the world. A lot of the strengths of that game are built around the fact that you knew exactly how big parties were likely to be. You had heroes. You could have heroes and henchmen, as an example, because that still meant 8 people in an instance. Could you imagine the lag if everyone had seven heroes here?

So comparing a lobby game expansion to an MMO expansion isn’t really something that’s all that fair.

Then you have to take into account the fact that there was no Z axis and a lot of stuff was pathed. That makes creating the game much easier as well. It was faster to create the maps used in Guild Wars 1. You can compare them all you like but I firmly believe that making maps for GW 1 was far simpler than making maps for Guild Wars 2. That these maps take far longer.

And dynamic events are harder to write and you need more of them than traditional quests.

There are so many differences between the games, from being an MMO to having a Z axis, to not pathing everything to not having traditional quests, to having things scale, to having a trading post, that Guild Wars 1 really didn’t have to worry about.

Sure you can compare the games. But you’re comparing games from different times, of different complexities, and even different types of games.

The only thing these games really have in common is the world they’re set in and the company that makes them. Beyond that, I’m 100% sure that Guild Wars 2 requires far more work to create content for.

Yes, those are things the two offerings had that made them different. They also had a large number of things that were similar or analogous, like characters, gear skins, mobs and elite content (just to name a few). Is it fair to compare them? The ultimate point of such comparisons is in determining value-for-money. In the end, though, that is going to come down, as Ill said, largely to what an individual likes — so such comparisons are best if made on an individual basis — X has a version of feature X which I liked, Y has a version of feature X that I dislike, etc. It may not be fair to ANet, but that is not my primary concern. I’m far more concerned about whether it’s fair to consumers to make such comparisons. I agree with you. I don’t think so, either. However, I’m not going to tell someone else he can’t, or say nothing when someone uses term lawyering to try to shut down discussion.

echo.2053:

Vayne.8563:

no trading post or auction house. I’ll never go back to a game where I have to stand around hawking my wares in Spamadan.
.

whatt??!!! Must be crazy. Gw1 had a far more stable economy because people had to stop to sell. You also didn’t have deal with constant global undercutting to the point where you just merch everything. gw2 recipes had to be revamped just to have value.

I am not talking about the economy. I’m not worried about global undercutting. I’m worried about having fun while I play. Standing around Spamadan wasn’t fun for me.

Vayne.8563:

echo.2053:

Vayne.8563:

no trading post or auction house. I’ll never go back to a game where I have to stand around hawking my wares in Spamadan.
.

whatt??!!! Must be crazy. Gw1 had a far more stable economy because people had to stop to sell. You also didn’t have deal with constant global undercutting to the point where you just merch everything. gw2 recipes had to be revamped just to have value.

I am not talking about the economy. I’m not worried about global undercutting. I’m worried about having fun while I play. Standing around Spamadan wasn’t fun for me.

o.0 the ah has a direct impact on the economy. To each their own though, If you enjoy mindlessly grinding low profit items nonstop….. well more power to you i guess

IndigoSundown.5419:

Vayne.8563:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

IndigoSundown.5419:

Raziel.4216:

LOL, more valid than one’s a full game and one’s an add-on.
Let’s compare D2: LoD with D3 next, or D3: RoS with D2 next.

Factions was both an add-on and a stand-alone game. It used the same engine, many of the same skills, the same classes and the same mechanics. So what if it had a leveling area. That invalidates comparison? Maybe in the minds of those looking for reasons to be dismissive.

Such as the devs who made the game? the very definition of expansion? or the comparisson with any other expansion out there?
Ah let’s ignore the ones who made’em, we know better right?

I’m not stating that Factions was an expansion, even though it has some things in common with expansions. If you choose to respond again, consider that fact first. You’ve yet to provide a single reason why a comparison between GW2: HoT and GW: Factions is invalid. Clue: “Because one is an expansion and the other isn’t” is not a valid reason. That’s the issue I’m talking about, not some kittening contest over the word expansion.

@ Vayne: We’re not discussing the merits of Factions v. HoT at all, just whether there can even be a comparison. Of course there can, but it looks like this poster is determined to hold onto the fallacy that because playing Factions did not require one to own GW and had a leveling area, that no comparison is possible.

Well here’s the problem with the comparison, having nothing to do with it being an expansion. Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO and Guild Wars 2 is. That means a whole lot more time being spent on stuff you didn’t really have to worry about in Guild Wars 1.

In many ways, Guild Wars 1 was just a lobby game. You met in an outpost, you got your party together, and you went out into the world. A lot of the strengths of that game are built around the fact that you knew exactly how big parties were likely to be. You had heroes. You could have heroes and henchmen, as an example, because that still meant 8 people in an instance. Could you imagine the lag if everyone had seven heroes here?

So comparing a lobby game expansion to an MMO expansion isn’t really something that’s all that fair.

Then you have to take into account the fact that there was no Z axis and a lot of stuff was pathed. That makes creating the game much easier as well. It was faster to create the maps used in Guild Wars 1. You can compare them all you like but I firmly believe that making maps for GW 1 was far simpler than making maps for Guild Wars 2. That these maps take far longer.

And dynamic events are harder to write and you need more of them than traditional quests.

There are so many differences between the games, from being an MMO to having a Z axis, to not pathing everything to not having traditional quests, to having things scale, to having a trading post, that Guild Wars 1 really didn’t have to worry about.

Sure you can compare the games. But you’re comparing games from different times, of different complexities, and even different types of games.

The only thing these games really have in common is the world they’re set in and the company that makes them. Beyond that, I’m 100% sure that Guild Wars 2 requires far more work to create content for.

Yes, those are things the two offerings had that made them different. They also had a large number of things that were similar or analogous, like characters, gear skins, mobs and elite content (just to name a few). Is it fair to compare them? The ultimate point of such comparisons is in determining value-for-money. In the end, though, that is going to come down, as Ill said, largely to what an individual likes — so such comparisons are best if made on an individual basis — X has a version of feature X which I liked, Y has a version of feature X that I dislike, etc. It may not be fair to ANet, but that is not my primary concern. I’m far more concerned about whether it’s fair to consumers to make such comparisons. I agree with you. I don’t think so, either. However, I’m not going to tell someone else he can’t, or say nothing when someone uses term lawyering to try to shut down discussion.

I don’t really buy this argument at all. If I go to a broadway show, I expect certain realities. If I go to an off broadway show, I expect different realities. If I go to a high school play, I expect different things as well.

If I watch a football match, I expect different things from watching pro wrestling even though they have similarities.

Having similarities isn’t really a good enough reason to compare stuff. My wife and I both have lungs and teeth but we’ve very different people.

The point is, you can obviously compare anything but if your expectations aren’t reasonable to start with, you set yourself up for failure. You don’t have to be fair to Anet, but you should be fair to yourself. Part of that starts with having reasonable expectations because if you don’t, you’re going to end up disappointed a lot of the time.

If you go into an MMO and expect expansions to be the same as the lobby game you bought eight years ago, you’re likely going to be disappointed. In fact, games have evolved and changed along those lines and the more people hold onto the past, the more disappointed they’re going to be.

Guild Wars 1 was a niche game, made at a time when you had to have a certain level of intelligence to play these games. Games in general are more mainstream now and the number and intelligence of the average player has gone down.

The same thing happened with pen and paper RPGs. When Dungeons and Dragons first came out, it was played only on college campuses. Princeton University had a D&D store in it. It filtered down to some specialized high schools, where some really smart kids played them.

But the more and more people played it, the dumber and dumber it got. The rules changed to take less power away from the players and give it to the system. If you were an original player, in those original games, you had a very different experience to later players. If you tried to get into later games, they were very different than the earlier games. And I could compare that original basic D&D to what came later, but there’s no real point, because they were very different games.

The same is true here. Guild Wars 1 was populated by a very narrow segment of the gaming population. As soon as Anet wanted to make the game more main stream, they ran into problems. Hearts were added because people couldn’t figure out the dynamic event system, even though I loved it without the hearts. The NPE was introduced because people couldn’t figure out what to do. I came from a generation of gamers where figuring out what to do was the game. But I can’t really expect those games to exist on the same level, because only a very few people would play them.

For one thing, there are far more games now and a lot of people won’t stay around long enough to have to figure something out.

Another difference back then is that we didn’t really have so many sites like Dulfy out there, to get through content the day it comes out. There are people in my guild who run to Dulfy before they even attempt content. That didn’t happen back then either.

Sure you can compare anything you want. But it won’t change the reality of the genre or the industry. The gaming world has evolved. If you want to be frustrated, that’s your decision. It’s not going to change the genre.

All MMOs suck today because too many people who play these games don’t want to think. That’s the real issue.

maddoctor.2738:

My comparison is completely fine though and you failed to explain why you think it’s flawed.

I already explained it.
To repeat i shortly:
-you pick subjective aspects (why landmarks, why dungeonentrances)
-you leave many aspects out which are very similiar (rezz shrines, skill unlocks, GW2 landmarks)
-you give questionable wight to those aspects (all is factored with 1)

All of that is highly subjective.
Your saying “one outpost/town is worth one POI”. That’s your personal decision. You’re not objective.
Your result would be:
32wp*(X1)+ 72 POIs*(X2)+ 40hero challanges*(X3)+ 24vista*(X4) compared to 13 towns*(X5)+ 33 landmarks*(X6)
If you choose X1 =1, X2=1, etc. thats your personal decision. Its not objective anymore. And as I said: you left a lot of stuff out, that’s also your subjective decision. I’d integrate ~150 rezz shrines and ~150 skill unlocks in EoTN, too. But I already explained all of that.

maddoctor.2738:

How useful are all those different armor sets of GW1 if you haven’t played GW1?

Are you serious?
Ofc EoTN has no content at all for a player who has not played EoTN….
All I said was: a player looking for skins will check out which skins are available for him.
He doesn’t care about the amount of skins which are ingame but not available because he got the wrong race or gender. I was trying to show you the limits of your comparision. Your comparision is true for a player who owns every “skinrace” in female and male. And for all other people without a charr male and female etc. your comparision is wrong.

maddoctor.2738:

No. The amount of clicks is one and it’s. HoT: 418, EotN: 150. That’s an actual OBJECTIVE comparison of skill clicks between games.

It isn’t. It’s you personal decision to make this comparision. Based on bellyfeelings i guess. Objective would be to count the amount of skills and don’t mix other into it.
I was not twisting your results up, I was showing you that your results are personal choosen results. Another player could have made the same comparision and could have choosen to express the results as “skills available per character”. He would get different results than yours. So: the presentation of the results is choosen.

maddoctor.2738:

Then I should add all the resource node spawns as well. Let’s see which game has more “features”

You already did that by comparing cities to POIs. It makes no difference at all. Your results are complety messed up, you can also add the amount of female npcs in WoW to your HoT side if you want to. It won’t make your results any worse.
The funny thing is: you are complaining about rezz shrines being different. But your still comparing a lot of completly different stuff which has less in common than WPs and shrines. But shrines are different, thats a good argument. But Vistas and POIs are the same, thats a good argument. So rata sum is the same as a POI.
Thats why I was jumping into this topic. No one should take this comparision serious.
You wanted to create proof for your point, you choose selected numbers and leave anything out that doesn’t fit into your agenda. Feel free to add cooking recipes and whatever to any side. You already did it, so why not keep doing so?

Jockum.1385:

-you pick subjective aspects (why landmarks, why dungeonentrances)

landmarks and dungeon entrances are the closest to pois and vistas, that’s why.

If you choose X1 =1, X2=1, etc. thats your personal decision. Its not objective anymore. And as I said: you left a lot of stuff out, that’s also your subjective decision. I’d integrate ~150 rezz shrines and ~150 skill unlocks in EoTN, too. But I already explained all of that.

I think you don’t understand what’s the difference between objective and subjective. How is giving different weights NOT subjective? The weights do not exist so by definition when you set them they are subjective. Giving everything weight = 1 is the simplest way (and most objective way) to count individual things. I hope you can understand that.

Are you serious?
Ofc EoTN has no content at all for a player who has not played EoTN….

You said me adding all HoT skins is bad because you are not interested in female charr skins yet you didn’t mention anything about someone not playing a Mesmer or Elementalist in GW1 which will remove every single skin for those professions from the count. Would that make any kind of sense to you? When you add skins you add every possible skin to make an actual OBJECTIVE comparison. no of skins vs no of skins. Removing some skins for any reason makes it completely subjective and as a general comparison completely worthless.

At least comparing the amount of skins in both games has some merit. On the other hand, comparing skins you like in one game with skins you like in another one is completely useless as a general comparison.

It’s you personal decision to make this comparision. Based on bellyfeelings i guess. Objective would be to count the amount of skills and don’t mix other into it.

IF you want to count only those it’s 182 vs 150
And really most traits work like long duration enchantment skills.

Thats why I was jumping into this topic. No one should take this comparision serious.
You wanted to create proof for your point, you choose selected numbers and leave anything out that doesn’t fit into your agenda. Feel free to add cooking recipes and whatever to any side. You already did it, so why not keep doing so?

I didn’t choose items for no reason. I chose items that make sense to be compared with each other. And Skills and Skins can be very very easily compared between the two games so at least those two are a clear statistic that can be used to compare them.

seriously there’s a rumble over skins and skills? Surprise there’s no competition – gw1 had unique clothes. gw2 repeats the same concept – heres long drape with a mask, oh get pumped new black lion clothes about to drop…..and its the same long draped cloths and mask with added flames

as for skills lulz

http://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Category:All_working_general_builds

gw2 – such skills much diversity

http://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki

echo.2053:

seriously there’s a rumble over skins and skills? Surprise there’s no competition – gw1 had unique clothes. gw2 repeats the same concept – heres long drape with a mask, oh get pumped new black lion clothes about to drop…..and its the same long draped cloths and mask with added flames

as for skills lulz

http://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Category:All_working_general_builds

gw2 – such skills much diversity

http://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki

I see about the same amount of build options, and the Guild Wars list is lacking a lot of very viable builds. Especially the non elite builds, which were a lot more common and a lot more successful. That’s coming from a heavy Arena player, who used to main Dervish, that used to bring down the Avatar Dervishes plus their friends. A lot of very viable builds that could 1v3/1v4 aren’t in that list.

Almighty Dervisher.6720:

echo.2053:

seriously there’s a rumble over skins and skills? Surprise there’s no competition – gw1 had unique clothes. gw2 repeats the same concept – heres long drape with a mask, oh get pumped new black lion clothes about to drop…..and its the same long draped cloths and mask with added flames

as for skills lulz

http://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Category:All_working_general_builds

gw2 – such skills much diversity

http://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki

I see about the same amount of build options, and the Guild Wars list is lacking a lot of very viable builds. Especially the non elite builds, which were a lot more common and a lot more successful. That’s coming from a heavy Arena player, who used to main Dervish, that used to bring down the Avatar Dervishes plus their friends. A lot of very viable builds that could 1v3/1v4 aren’t in that list.

so close yet tooo far – what was posted was just pve builds for gw1.

I could of posted the pvp meta- great- good etc builds – http://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Category:All_working_PvP_builds

But it would of been pointless becuase the gw2 whiteknights would always be like " the 4 gw2 ele pvp builds is the same number as the 21 gw1 ele pvp builds – no differeance"

Vayne.8563:

- snip -

All MMOs suck today because too many people who play these games don’t want to think. That’s the real issue.

I won’t get into the many similarities between GW and an MMO other than to say that there are a lot. In fact, if you want to use pro wrestling as part of an analogy, you should have used amateur wrestling as the counterpoint. That’s a lot closer to the similarities/differences between GW/GW2 than comparing it to football (either sort). Or maybe pro wrestling and reality TV. That would work, too.

As to your analysis of what’s happened to MMO’s, I wish I could disagree.

Almighty Dervisher.6720:

Blaine Tog.8304:

You’ve also neglected to mention one of the biggest selling points of HoT: Elite Specializations, each of which is a much bigger deal than a few extra skills.

Ah so this is what a HoT player is like. You’re ignoring the skills listing, didn’t bother checking the Guild Wars wikis. I listed the Elite Specializations as part of the “Skill per profession”, because it’s almost the exact same thing. Skills are skills, no matter what fancy wording you use.

Alright, then by your logic, trait are also skills. (Skills are skill regardless of which wording you’re using) that means each profession also gets 12+ “skills”-trait, which means it’s 30+ per profession. Your comparison is flat wrong by your own definition.

The moment you don’t take into account of price inflation, that line alone takes away all your credibility sorry.

Maps in GW1 are flat. So they have zero volume. You only travel on a two dimensional surface in gw1 even though it “looks” like you’re in 3D. Maps in Gw2 especially in HoT is 3D. So volume wise you can combine a million Gw1 maps (0 × 1 mil is still zero sorry) and still won’t be equal to 1 HoT map, let alone 4, so yeah. EotN basically added 4 planes? hulloh? And you call that 4 regions?

Armors: Actually this is a flat lie. Gw1 did not add 41 armor sets LMAO, it adds FOUR (Asuran, Norn, Monument, Deldrimor)! and an extra Silver Eagle that only applies to WARRIOR And a bunch of individual pieces. HoT adds Leystone, Ornate Guild, Plated, Bandit (Outfit but for armor count all races/genders can wear it), Winter Solstice (outfit but for armor count all races/genders can wear it), and Mistward

If you count the individual pieces then you must count each piece for all race x 5 and armor weight x 3, So pieces count those above would be 6 × 6 × 5 x 3 = 540 armor pieces alone for HoT (a chest piece on a charr warrior count different than a chest piece on a human mesmer lol. Like you said, name is name so different look count whether they are named the same or not). EotN adds 41? please!
either cases HoT adds WAY MORE armor (set count or piece count) than EoTN.

echo.2053:

Vayne.8563:

no trading post or auction house. I’ll never go back to a game where I have to stand around hawking my wares in Spamadan.
.

whatt??!!! Must be crazy. Gw1 had a far more stable economy because people had to stop to sell. You also didn’t have deal with constant global undercutting to the point where you just merch everything. gw2 recipes had to be revamped just to have value.

That represents a misunderstanding of the GW1 economy.

With no global market place, there was no “stability” — prices were what anyone with more market savvy decided they were when they made their offers. Any power trader had at least one account that they could keep open in spamadan (and later, the nearest outpost to nick’s location) to buy and sell. People who had more knowledge of the game or more time to spend got better deals.

Profiteering, flipping, misleading deals, outrageous fees on simple arbitrage, and all of the things that people bemoan of take place in nearly every good bought/sold in GW1. The only reason it people didn’t complain about it is they were unaware just how much it went on.

Global undercutting, as you call it, ensures that the overall market is based on supply and demand, not on knowing more or having more time.

Regardless, what difference does it make when comparing EotN to HoT? EotN didn’t add/subtract a global market place and HoT didn’t either.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Vayne.8563:

- snip -

All MMOs suck today because too many people who play these games don’t want to think. That’s the real issue.

I won’t get into the many similarities between GW and an MMO other than to say that there are a lot. In fact, if you want to use pro wrestling as part of an analogy, you should have used amateur wrestling as the counterpoint. That’s a lot closer to the similarities/differences between GW/GW2 than comparing it to football (either sort). Or maybe pro wrestling and reality TV. That would work, too.

As to your analysis of what’s happened to MMO’s, I wish I could disagree.

Well amateur wrestling and pro wrestling couldn’t be more different, in spite of their similarties. Pro wrestling is story driven, and not actually a sport at all. Amateur wrestling is a sport.

But the problem with compared stuff across long periods of time is that kitten changes. The whole industry has changed, even if Guild Wars 1 was an MMO.

But the reason for citing that it’s not an MMO isn’t because they’re similar or different. It’s a fact that running an MMO is much harder and more intensive than running a lobby game. So resources have to be adjusted for that.

And if making these maps takes five times as long as making the old style 2d pathed maps, then it’s unrealistic to expect as many of them.

Also by having heroes in those games, Anet doesn’t have to worry if there are players in maps. Everyone can solo most things with heroes. But adding a bunch more maps in an MMO means the population is far more spread out. You can’t always depend on heroes.

If I were the only guy in the Cursed Shore I’d hate it. I never had that problem in Guild Wars 1. The point is it’s a whole different way of thinking, in the way that professional wrestling and amateur wrestling are completely different ways of thinking.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

echo.2053:

Vayne.8563:

no trading post or auction house. I’ll never go back to a game where I have to stand around hawking my wares in Spamadan.
.

whatt??!!! Must be crazy. Gw1 had a far more stable economy because people had to stop to sell. You also didn’t have deal with constant global undercutting to the point where you just merch everything. gw2 recipes had to be revamped just to have value.

That represents a misunderstanding of the GW1 economy.

With no global market place, there was no “stability” — prices were what anyone with more market savvy decided they were when they made their offers. Any power trader had at least one account that they could keep open in spamadan (and later, the nearest outpost to nick’s location) to buy and sell. People who had more knowledge of the game or more time to spend got better deals.

Profiteering, flipping, misleading deals, outrageous fees on simple arbitrage, and all of the things that people bemoan of take place in nearly every good bought/sold in GW1. The only reason it people didn’t complain about it is they were unaware just how much it went on.

Global undercutting, as you call it, ensures that the overall market is based on supply and demand, not on knowing more or having more time.

---

Regardless, what difference does it make when comparing EotN to HoT? EotN didn’t add/subtract a global market place and HoT didn’t either.

oh look we have an heir!!!

So please help me understand with my lack of economy background…. what would of happened to the supply and demand in gw1 if i was able to list goods in an AH and be able to continue nonstop farming instead having to have players stop to unload their bags?

Yes prices in gw1 weren’t set in stone but rarely did they ever fall to the point where you were better off merching the item instead of forever trying to sell it like the tiny snowflake. You must be new most of the lower tier crafting items, prior to the crafting updates, were in that same position.

If you got the time I’d love to read an explanation as to why the majority of items range from merchant value to 1.5 gold with the exception if it has a superior rune or is exotic zerker. Surely its not the fact that the AH crosses all servers or the fact that players are able to empty their bags and continue to farm pretty much unimpeded. There has to be some other kind of black magic wizardary going about :o

maddoctor.2738:

I think you don’t understand what’s the difference between objective and subjective. How is giving different weights NOT subjective?

I said that giving wights is not objective. Even in the part you quoted.
Yes, giving wights is subjective. But you also give wights. So you’re not objective.

No, using factor 1 for everything is not better. It is also completly subjective.
You could try to make an educated guess, but thats difficult. GW outposts are way smaller than GW2 towns. So maybe you can compare them to jaka itzel or rata novus. They might be worth roughly 5 times an POI.

GW2 got marked special position on its map, GW doesn’t.
You are counting 116 POIs and Vistas on maps in HoT. I’m leaving out waypoints, dungeon and mission entrances (HoT also got them!) and am just referring to “unique landmarks on a map”.
So roughly 30 per map. EoTN has afaik 15 world maps and ~30 landmarks (they are afaik user defined). So ~ two “POIs” per map. That’s quite a difference to 30 per map. GW2 maps might be a bit bigger and more detailed, but not factor 15. And there are also 13 outposts and 49 dungeon maps (and some of the landmarks are in dungeons). So its quite obvious that comparing special landscapes can’t be done so easily. You’d have to get into each map and check them for special landscapes which would be POI-worthy. Without that a comparision has to be 116: ?.

maddoctor.2738:

You said me adding all HoT skins is bad because you are not interested in female charr skins yet you didn’t mention anything about someone not playing a Mesmer or Elementalist in GW1 which will remove every single skin for those professions from the count. Would that make any kind of sense to you?

It does. When I’m correct HoT has 3 new armour sets and EoTN 4. So roughly the same for armour skins.
HoT has some backpacks and stuff, EoTN has some gloves and hats blablub. I don’t see a big difference. Both should have added more skins.
Weapon skins are different. You can wear every weapon in GW1, but it doesn’t always make sense. That’s not possible in GW2. I’d say weapon skins are similar if you leave precurser collection out. Some of them are reskins or “raw” skins of others, but there are 23*2 new pres. So maybe there are 50 extra skins in HoT. I’m not very impressed, but I would also not say HoT offers no/less/too little skins compared to EoTN. I think they are similar, HoT might be bit better when it comes to skins.

I wouldn’t start counting skins which anet promised to add in the future. Anet also kept adding new skins for GW1 (obsiblade for example or winds of change stuff (GW1 “living story”)).

maddoctor.2738:

IF you want to count only those it’s 182 vs 150

On the other hand those numbers show the reason why many people are complaining about too little new skills in HoT. They got 20 new skills which are available on their class. 150 new skills available are more skills available to your char. While the total amount of skills is indeed bigger. There are two truths in this case. Which helps to understand the complaints about too few new skills. It’s not wrong, it’s just another perspective.

maddoctor.2738:

And Skills and Skins can be very very easily compared between the two games so at least those two are a clear statistic that can be used to compare them.

I was refering mostly to your content/explore comparision.
On skins and skills its a matter of your personal view. Do you care about total numbers or the amount of skins and skills available to one (or more) of your charakters? This will lead to different conclusions.

Sometimes you don’t need to perform comparisons to realize that the thing you’re examining in isn’t very good. Some things can fall short in the absolute, without a need to regard the relative. This is one of those cases.

echo.2053:

oh look we have an heir!!!

So please help me understand with my lack of economy background…. what would of happened to the supply and demand in gw1 if i was able to list goods in an AH and be able to continue nonstop farming instead having to have players stop to unload their bags?

Yes prices in gw1 weren’t set in stone but rarely did they ever fall to the point where you were better off merching the item instead of forever trying to sell it like the tiny snowflake. You must be new most of the lower tier crafting items, prior to the crafting updates, were in that same position.

If you got the time I’d love to read an explanation as to why the majority of items range from merchant value to 1.5 gold with the exception if it has a superior rune or is exotic zerker. Surely its not the fact that the AH crosses all servers or the fact that players are able to empty their bags and continue to farm pretty much unimpeded. There has to be some other kind of black magic wizardary going about :o

If you actually merchant anything but the green crests, i feel so sorry for you. Maybe read on How to Play Guild Wars 2 Course 101. There is a guide somewhere. Let me find you a link. Ah here it is

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Trading_Post

Good luck.

echo.2053:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

echo.2053:

Vayne.8563:

no trading post or auction house. I’ll never go back to a game where I have to stand around hawking my wares in Spamadan.
.

whatt??!!! Must be crazy. Gw1 had a far more stable economy because people had to stop to sell. You also didn’t have deal with constant global undercutting to the point where you just merch everything. gw2 recipes had to be revamped just to have value.

That represents a misunderstanding of the GW1 economy.

With no global market place, there was no “stability” — prices were what anyone with more market savvy decided they were when they made their offers. Any power trader had at least one account that they could keep open in spamadan (and later, the nearest outpost to nick’s location) to buy and sell. People who had more knowledge of the game or more time to spend got better deals.

Profiteering, flipping, misleading deals, outrageous fees on simple arbitrage, and all of the things that people bemoan of take place in nearly every good bought/sold in GW1. The only reason it people didn’t complain about it is they were unaware just how much it went on.

Global undercutting, as you call it, ensures that the overall market is based on supply and demand, not on knowing more or having more time.

---

Regardless, what difference does it make when comparing EotN to HoT? EotN didn’t add/subtract a global market place and HoT didn’t either.

oh look we have an heir!!!

So please help me understand with my lack of economy background…. what would of happened to the supply and demand in gw1 if i was able to list goods in an AH and be able to continue nonstop farming instead having to have players stop to unload their bags?

Yes prices in gw1 weren’t set in stone but rarely did they ever fall to the point where you were better off merching the item instead of forever trying to sell it like the tiny snowflake. You must be new most of the lower tier crafting items, prior to the crafting updates, were in that same position.

If you got the time I’d love to read an explanation as to why the majority of items range from merchant value to 1.5 gold with the exception if it has a superior rune or is exotic zerker. Surely its not the fact that the AH crosses all servers or the fact that players are able to empty their bags and continue to farm pretty much unimpeded. There has to be some other kind of black magic wizardary going about :o

Maybe prices didn’t fall much in Guild Wars 1, but good luck finding a buyer for most items. Did people in want my low, level starting green weapons that I got off the starting bosses? I stood there spamming the WTS until I got tired of it, then gave up and merched them for vendor prices. If I could have put them on a world wide trading post, someone would have wanted them. As it was, all I could reach was the few on the map who were there at the same time as me and who were actually paying attention to trade chat, which scrolled so fast that it was off the screen after 2 or 3 minutes. Same thing for my mallyx bow or my other green weapons. I have one alt with an inventory stuffed full of max level green weapons, that I couldn’t be bothered to stand for hours spamming WTS and didn’t want to vendor.