Guild Wars 2

Guildwars 1 was looked on by many from the outside world as an unsatisfactory pvp model. This, however, was an unfortunate consequence of the lack of other good models. It was by no means due to the combat itself but more due to hidden in game mechanics, hard to grasp initial game play, and poor observation mode.

Hidden In Game Mechanics:

Hard To Grasp Initial Gameplay:

Poor Observation Mode:

Theoretically, for these reasons listed, Anet decided that guildwars 1 was simply too complicated of a pvp structure. I can understand that quite honestly and it pretty much was. The thing they overlooked however is how many of those problems got solved by the innate design of GW2 mechanics. Throw in an observer mode that is extremely informational and you’d of had one of the greatest platforms for an rpg game you would ever encounter. Of course, now it is important to mention why this is the case and that leads me to part 2…..

Guildwars 1 was and is the only team oriented pvp in any genre of any game I have ever found. At the current rate and direction game developers are going, it appears it will remain that way. Now, there are plenty of games that have team concepts, plenty of games that require you to play collectively, but no game that asks you to truly depend on your teammates.

Coordination Versus Team Play:

Guildwars 1 As An Example:

Reality And Guildwars 2

I will end by mentioning that Guildwars 2 pvp is fun. It is just far from what it could have been. They ironically tried to recreate rpg pvp but ended up landing in territory that has already been visited before. The most original game I could ever imagine for pvp was and at this moment, always will be, guildwars 1. Further, I am not asking for deathmatch or for literal GvG. I am asking for any format that focuses on fighting as a team and offers alternative objectives that can act as an alternative means to an end and give the game more strategic depth. Capture points uses capture points AS the end and further does not focus on the concept of team fighting.

I apologize for the length, but I literally couldn’t stop writing as I had started. I honestly think it is worth your time to read it all, but I will offer a very quick summary below:

tl;dr: Guildwars 2 looked to be innovative, and in many cases is. However, the most innovative thing they could of done was kept the same game play as guildwars 1 gvg and just thrown in some of the already changed aspects of guildwars 2 to of made a pvp game that is simply unrivaled. Oh, and an observer mode.

Now we wait as I suspect no one will read this. Oh well, at least I got it off my chest….

Will start reading the rest of the post now however,

But, guildwars 1 was by far closer than any other rpg has come to a fantastic and fundamentally outstanding pvp game.

This was enough said.

Just read the majority of it good read, I’ve been trying to explain this teamplay thing for a while now. It’s like the creators of things don’t notice what it is they did to make something great. Then when they make something else, they forgot what made it stand out to those players. However the players will never forget what it is that made them like it so much or why they stuck around for so long.

I did a video on what I think gvg should be like in this game, and reducing the damage is one of the key things for this format ONLY and will open up the teamplay we want to work properly (you can’t have this type of insane damage inside that format it would be like four hitting with a sword build in gw1, it just can’t be happening, especially without a solid healer). The combat needs to last not just be a power war 15 second battle.

Without reducing the damage the best example I can give would be like 4 coordinated eles in random arenas without a monk on the other team, or 4 coordinated old sp sins.

Wouldn’t last long, a power war, and spike spike spike, game over.

This damage reduction on all classes would be required for arenas too, however when it comes to that fire map, where you respawn, we could have the full power in that certain arena.

Gvg should also be puggable in unrated mode (say something similar to how ha worked when it says team x vs team y).

If you are wondering what the hell does damage have to do with teamplay, the less damage that there is the more coordination required to kill, the more combos needed, etc, if someones going to one hit someone theres not much coordination involved there. The better the matches are than just powered down the other team in 5 seconds (which can still happen but not every single matchup).

Similar to guidlwars1 gvg, but a territorial/kill based system that shows whose really winning the matchup.
http://www.twitch.tv/sublimistri/b/331437419

I was waiting a bit to respond to you to see when you are done. I think it’s close now lol.

Anyways, I agree with you conceptually, I just think the better way to go about it is to buff support/shutdown. Having big damage builds be viable is a great way to get lower skilled players opportunity to experience the game and the game play without needing that extra level of coordination. Further, having buffed support means a sufficiently good team can counter a high damage team simply by outlasting due to their support. Then, the final step is when the game evolves to something interesting and that would be when teams learn how to shut down support to create those coveted openings for pressure and maybe even a kill. Note that the downed state allows for the ability to flat kill someone without an actual team wipe or an actual kill.

R E F L H E X.8413:

If you are wondering what the hell does damage have to do with teamplay, the less damage that there is the more coordination required to kill, the more combos needed, etc

Yeah they could put a 15-20 sec video (like the opening cinematic-artistic of the character creation) , explaing why their strengh-damage is reduced .
For example i made a silly post a while ago , how they could implant a 3v3 arena , starting with 30% damage done and ramp up +1% every sec

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Vote-for-Arena-in-Guild-Wars-2/first#post173788
(3 friends on a snow maintoun try to find an artifact > they faint from the cold > their body is numb from the cold , that why they do 30% > the artifact save them and an additional 3 travelers > It let them to proove their worthy by fighting each other > by fighting each other in the heat of battle, they regain their strengh )

A GvG or arena with a backstory video-trailer (like dungeons) :P

Diage, that was mostly spot-on and a very enjoyable read at that. I tip my hat to you.

Sadly, many of your points and concerns have been brought up before – and have fallen on deaf ears. I highly doubt the format will see major changes, as much as many of us wish for it to happen.
The approach of maximum popularity through ease of access versus (overly) complex mechanics simply reflects the current state of media development and publishing.

My argument mainly rests on the point that Arenanet already did a lot of work that would have resulted in a less complex setting. Further, I didn’t say we need GvG. All I want to see is something that focuses on team. The great thing about that concept is you can make it so that the individual professions are relatively easy to learn and the challenge would actually come from playing as a team.

I suppose, the moral is that I honestly believe it shouldn’t be ease of access versus complex mechanics, it should be a compromise of the two and Anet had the opportunity to do that and instead they went 180 from that.

Added: Oh, and thank you for reading and enjoying it

A man who gets it. As hard as it is to accept the facts you stated, you have to admit they are true in almost every regard.

The only thing though is that you limited your statements to GvG only. Guild Wars 1 had plenty of other game modes in PvP. HA being the best example.

The lines in hoh were often a little more blurred with more defensive team builds resulting in less ability to punish the enemy for over extending but more ability to sustain agressive pressure. This came partially because of builds intending to hold the alter and partially because of the lack of team splitting objectives (bar relic run)

At any rate, i ish agree, but im just down about the whole thing right now.

I feel like we went from legos to linkin logs, because we did. We dumbed it down, and no matter how we try to add back the depth of strategy that i loved… 5th graders might feel challenged being asked to go back and do multiplication flash cards with 3rd graders, they might not be that fast… but theyre bound to miss getting asked a fraction question. I wanted to be challenged in a way that this game will probably never offer.

Its actually a real dissapointment because im hardly a rocked surgeon. Im a janitor who might complete a bacgelore degree in something not too hard some day.  i shouldnt have to feel like im too smart for a videogame community, i really shouldnt.

Impressive insight!

There is pretty much nothing to be added. As I wrote in Another thread there are things Conquest achieves. It just is colorless and bleak.

The fundamentals were noble, but I think they lost it in the process. It is completely fixable both technically and conceptually. But it would require developers to look back and admit Conquest isn’t perfect. Then they would need to sit down and build a new PvP mode from scratch.

I would also add that in my view the idea of making GW2 an e-sport is long forgone. The Conquest is just unsustainable as an e-sport.

• Maps are too small and simple to provide long-term entertainment for viewers – I don’t know about others – but I can’t imagine myself watching a stream of a few randomly rotating maps in a multiple team tournament. Conquest with its maps doesn’t have League of Legends scale, complexity and possible scenarios.
• The matches are too short. With every match pretty much ending in 15 minutes it just isn’t enough to tell a story and show rivalry. Messy things happen very fast in multiple places with no single point to hold on to. In League of Legends the focus points are usually being carried by junglers in early game, then by whole teams during mid-late game. Conquest just doesn’t work like that in so many ways.

I think Anet needs to realise that to be able to move on.

Nice one, easy enjoyable read and I agree almost 100%.
The skill tree with the double class model, the hidden mechanics within skills/skill-combos, the steep learning curve of some game modes and the implied strategies made GW1 a really complex game, were achieving balance was impossible.

GW2 got rid of some of those hard to grasp concepts or replaced them with something that is easier to understand.
I’m still not sure how it will play out, we’ll see if whats was gained will compensate for the what was actually lost.

What I see now, is that most people play the game as a collection of “I or self” and do not explore the combos and such. GW2 teamplay now is mostly agreeing upon the split tactics and calling for roamers to help. I rarely see teams that use coordinated attacks with well times chained CC to finish off targets.

Shutdown only goes to the extent of stopping a player from resurrecting their allies. So no pre-burst/spike shutdown of a support class is actually done/needed. This also makes the game much much simpler, and I don’t know if this was a good move. Preparing an attack is just as important as the execution, and in these terms there isn;t much of a requirement in GW2 other than positioning.

10/10
have i to put +1 all the posts or is just enought to put +1 at the first post to make this thread important? gg

I’m moving here with my stuff to try to merge discussions,

A month has passed and I decided to step in with something more than just a humorous posts here and there.

What I am aiming at is starting a wide discussion about sPvP’s future. What we as a community need to do is take the collective effort and provide our insight to familiarize ArenaNet with different points of view. Together we can improve GW2 PvP and make it as good as it can be. Ideally this thread could gain some notice from developers and the community as a whole and become a place they could look in search of ideas.

Before I start the whole discussion I would like to say that it will be largely connected to the original Guild Wars game, which I believe was much better in many ways. If you want to comment with standard ‘it’s a completely new, different game’, I’d appreciate if you refrained from replying. Thanks.

What’s also important, I will be mainly talking in reference to GvG/HA, since these two were essentially standing for PvP in Guild Wars. If not stated differently, that’s our standard reference point.

Where it all started?

The whole design philosophy behind the combat system and PvP (as well as PvE, but I won’t be talking about it that much) that led us to where we are today was pretty simple. ArenaNet saw obvious drawbacks the original Guild Wars game had and wanted to create something better. Unfortunately, there were limitations (both through engine and design) that made it impossible to implement the ‘vision’ in Guild Wars 1. This is when and why Guild Wars 2 development process started.

What were the key factors that led them do that?

We could probably think of more, but let’s stop right here. Suffice to say there were serious barriers for new players blocking them from playing and enjoying competitive PvP. They closed the community making it hermetic eventually leading PvP into stagnation and death.

At the same time, PvP was extremely fun, challenge-oriented and exceptionally rewarding. Holding Tombs was giving your realm Favor of the Gods back in the days. Winning in GvG tournaments would give you in-game wealth and recognition for your guild. GW1 GvG is probably the most challenging team PvP to date. It gave few years of extreme fun to people who could play it and compete with each other.
With that said – it didn’t work for the majority. Anet saw that and wanted to make things right.

What did they do to make things right?

During the development of Guild Wars 2 and its PvP in particular, games like LoL surfaced to create a whole new PvP experience. It had simple objectives, it was accessible, casual friendly, free-to-play, entertaining and addictive. At the same time, it allowed many play styles and setups. With one mode it was easy to focus on balance and expansion.

I believe this had great impact on PvP design in Guild Wars 2. Designers wanted to create combat and PvP that wouldn’t force teams to particular profession setups. They wanted it more casual, so that new players could join and play. What they needed was less complexity – achieved through less skills and one mode to make it even simpler to tinker with. Titles are rather easy to obtain and anyone can get them PUGing tournaments. Teams are small making grouping easy. Pretty much any barrier we talked about was eliminated. Yay!

But was it really for the better? Do we have the ultimate Guild Wars 2 PvP experience we all wanted and waited for? There is no single answer to this question and it varies from person to person. I can only try answering it from the perspective of a veteran Guild Wars player. The key to answering it is ‘Conquest’.

I personally believe that the current sPvP mode is responsible for all the negative PvP feedback. Conquest creates difficulties – it forces some profession choices on players (Guardian on Clocktower), makes some professions and builds superstrong in comparison to others (Necro fighting Mesmer) and favours counter-picking. It all can be solved with proper skill changes, but is it really a solution?
I think the problem with Conquest is much deeper and it caused dozens of my friends (including me) stop playing tPvP. We all agreed that this game needs more complex and more interesting PvP mode.

Now, there’s an obvious solution – GvG-style mode in Guild Wars 2.

I like to think of this idea as of taking some insanely entertaining parts of WvW like protecting Keeps and slightly bigger groups and putting it into structured environment with max stats, best gear and without zerg’n’lagfest.
I can imagine it as 4 players playing 2v2 in the middle of the map, continuously taking the side objective from each other. The objective buffs the team allowing splitting players to push the main objective by taking down the gate or killing an NPC.
Each team can have someone to protect the base and roam across the map to help in the middle or in enemy base. I know I and my friends would jump into it immediately.

But what’s most beautiful thing about this approach – Anet already has the mode done in GW1. The design part is done, what’s left is the implementation.

What’s ahead?

Don’t get me wrong – Conquest isn’t a complete fail. It definitely achieves many important goals they set. The thing is – they could do much better than that. Many people like it and will play it for a long time. Me and most of my friends from original GW feel disappointed having played GvG and HA, both being more fun beyond comparison. And no ladder/ observer mode/ additional maps can improve the experience by the required amount. It just wears off too quickly and is too repetitive.

What I’d like to emphasise is – We all as the PvP community can help making PvP experience the best possible. Let’s provide our feedback and ideas. If we show how much we care, we will have them in game sooner or later. We can make this a PvP-evolution and suggestions thread to provide basics for further discussion and PvP development.

The only obstacle I can think of is Anet standing by Conquest as its flagship and main supported mode. The ideal solution from my point of view would be to create a new mode to replace Conquest as a main, e-sportish mode with Conquest becoming a more casual Random Arena-type battleground.

TL;DR
Conquest mode is the main reason for the imbalances in PvP gameplay. The assumptions that led to its creation were alright, but it just won’t work in the long-run. Replacing it with something like GvG from original Guild Wars with more entertaining objectives tailored with new mechanics and capabilities in mind could lead to the PvP we all want so much.

Thank you all for enjoying it, I’m quite surprised at how many people actually read it, let alone agree with me. It’s good to know I am not the only one who feels there was a real missed opportunity with this game. Hopefully, Anet can see that there is something missing from their pvp and will attempt to rectify this.

You know, I figure if you make capture points linear and change the entire scoring mechanic and altered the secondary objectives, I’d be willing to be that would help to drastically improve the orientation of combat. Consider the case where you HAVE to fight over a single point OR go for a secondary objective in order to be the most effective. (BTW, by linear I mean you would have to have all points between your base and the one you want captured prior to being able to capture the next one. It will most likely result in a prolonged fight over the middle point.)

I would love to see a compromise. Something that can bring in the team oriented combat and yet not require them to deviate far from the game they’ve tried to make. It doesn’t require GvG to be a team oriented game, it just needs to be something that forces you to have to fight together to obtain victory rather than just fighting as a collective group of individuals.

Completely agree. 10/10

Execellent read, and i couldn’t agree more, while the current mechanisums provide good entry game types for players, the game feels like players are thrown into a mixer, and does not provide solid team based play.

Good read, I never played GW1 pvp all that much but I can see the differences posted here and agree completely.

GW1 started as a pvp based game and ended in a balancing train wreck, OP did you even play it?

Sol Haer.5187:

GW1 started as a pvp based game and ended in a balancing train wreck, OP did you even play it?

Did you?
Your questions is unneeded, if you got something to say, then do it in more constructive way.

We are all aware what mistakes Anet did, biggest one being letting gw1 to become empty place, not caring about balance and giving us updates we needed.

PvP wasn’t wrong, balance team was, and Anet as whole making some stupid moves (Heroes in HA, etc.).

So if you have something to say, then don’t bash PvP in gw1, or gw1 itself, bash Anet for letting it down. Thank you!

GW2 pvp just feels like random stuff thrown together, with no thought applied to whether quickness, retaliation, and high damaging NPC spam would be making a joke out of the game.

Comparing gw2 pvp to gw1 its like this game is made by some small indie dev team, not arena net, casualized to feel and play more like WoW, while being far less twitchy than what it is trying to be. Not a single part of the game feels engaging enough to be played long term.

I see myself quitting at rank 30 as it will simply require too much grinding from that point, while the gameplay just isnt up to par to make that enjoyable enough. There’s only so many 6x mesmers and guardians, quickness abusing thiefs and warriors per team you can fight before throwing up in boredom and disgust. Doing that straight for 15k glory required per rank for 10 ranks? No thanks.

Sol Haer.5187:

GW1 started as a pvp based game and ended in a balancing train wreck, OP did you even play it?

Alright, now that I am at home and at my computer, I want to talk about this point. It leads into some very interesting conclusions.

GW1, when it was first released, had Three random arenas, GvG and tombs. There was a level 1-10 arena, I believe the next one was 10-15 or maybe 18 and the final random arena we were familiar with was originally not just 20, it was either 15-20 or 18-20.

At the time, the developers did not create it as a pvp only game. Their goal was to create a game where pvp and pve were entwined together. At any moment in the game, pvp was available to you and you could compete in it.

Slowly, they began to realize that the pvp in their gamed worked out great. People really enjoyed it. Of course, there were some complaints, for example sub level 20s in RA and GvG. It was more difficult than they wanted it to be to get into pvp. There was no actual reward system for pvp. It was also sort of all over the place.

Time goes on, and they handled each one of these problems separately. Each one changing and further dividing their original goal. The learned they needed to have a max level arena, pvp should give some kind of reward (faction was born), pvp just didn’t fit into the realm of pve (they created the pvp isles). The next biggest accomplishment was when they decided to directly split pvp and pve forever, creating separate set of skills that allowed them to balance two games at the same time.

This brings me to two important points.

1: Multiple game modes- Sure, I would love for something to waste my time with when I am at the mists that does not include hot join or running in circles. However, if you want something other than that for multiple game modes, it will never work. It is not possible, without extra levels of complication, to create alternative game modes that are in any way competitive or balanced. The reason this is relevant is due to the extreme observation of the need to seperate skills. Different contexts ask for different objectives. Which means different set of skills will be of greater use, which means a different set of skills will be imbalanced. Point, balance is impossible in the multi game set up.

2:Anet really didn’t grasp the core of their game. Seldom to never did they make any changes or observations of the actual game play. All of their major changes were focused on separating the two modes. This explains why they took that lesson away and not the other. It is also interesting to note that there weren’t any dev teams that could truly play GW1. They relied heavily on player testers to tell them when something was balanced or not. This created a HUGE bias in the balancing category of the game and is what I contribute strongly to the fallout of balance in GW1.

So yes, I did play GW1.

I like this thread, it deserves to be on top. Even if I did not play GW1.

wuzzle.1368:

I like this thread, it deserves to be on top. Even if I did not play GW1.

<3 (no kitten

thank you,
I appreciate when people enjoy my writing.

I would give almost anything to see Anet discuss why they decided to completely ignore PvP from GW1 and go for a format so left field from their great predecessor.

A post that might tell me what did they plan to bring from GW1, what do they plan to bring from GW1. Something that would let me know the company I invested nearly 6 years of my life to is still in existence. So far, this company is not the same. They aren’t making a game for gamers, they’re making a game for the general populace. I remember watching a short video by them where they discussed how they got their start. Introducing them as a group of players who wanted to make the ultimate game for gamers, if I recall right. I would love to know they still exist.

I agree completely with the OP.

Here are some major issues i’ve found with the disconnect from GW1 to GW2.

- Team composition, tactics, and strategy seem to be marginalized in Guild Wars 2.
- Skill design is lazy and ineffective. Most skills are outclassed or just not viable for any solid building like in GW2, again marginalized systems. Builds don’t seem as solid and they don’t seem to matter individually and integrally to team composition. Very homogeneous.
- Progression systems like Traits seem very short-sighted and half-baked. They don’t really deliver much in the way of solid, tangible means of character building. On top of that, there’s really no way to communicate builds to other players effectively, making strategy and group composition even harder.
-Class roles and lines are blurred, everyone can do anything…not really an engaging experience from a design perspective. Diversity is the spice of life.
- There are obvious problems with player engagement in regards to the static weapon skill bars. Easier to balance, but fun for the player?
- Elite skill options are an absolute joke when considering how they mattered in GW1.
-Lacking basic features like moving the UI or seeing enemy dots on a minimap. You’re not helping immersion, you’re kittening the gameplay.
-The obvious “watering-down” of skill and combat systems to suit casualized content design.

Sometimes I have a hard time determining of people are serious due to how ridiculous some things sound.

Build communication: Skill calculators like en.gw2skills.net/editor/ tell you every single detail about someone’s build. If you’re discussing a build with friends, you can probably share links. If you’re PMing with someone about a build, you can give the A/B/C/D/E format, as well as trait numbers, weapons, and armor/amulet prefix and rune suffix. A standard will develop eventually, at which point it’ll be ultra easy, like:

Hammer/GS, 20(II,IX)/10(IV)/20(II,X)/0/20(III,X), Soldier/Soldier, Lyssa

All I have to do is list a few additional abilities, and you have every piece necessary to analyze it. You can go recreate it on a skill calc in 60 seconds or less.

Class roles: They marketed that everyone can do everything, and to a degree you can. However, top tier PvP seems to be separating classes into the roles they’re best at. Funny how “diversity is the spice of life”, unless it’s a class having intra-diversity. Then apparently it’s not really engaging.

Static player skills: If you want your Greatsword to be stun/AoE control, I’m sorry for your loss. The ability to combo two weapons together feels very engaging to me. There’s still a lot to be decided in Healing/Utilities/Traits/stat priorities, as well.

Watering-down of Skill and Combat Systems: I’d like to hear this justified.

A cynical part of me is coming to the conclusion that many GW1 vets just miss being elitist about their game. It sounds like it was probably a lot of fun if the stars aligned and you could actually get into the PvP, but it’s getting to a point where many critiques are becoming more and more baseless. People can have opinions, but treating them like objective facts sends me to a sad place.

I wonder how far along the GW1 PvP meta was after 1.5 months. Can anyone share?

@Cogbyrn:

In cases of GW1 players I know (myself included) it’s just we don’t find it fun.

We were being served with a delicious PvP dish for past few years and were looking forward to new restaurant’s opening. The stuff they serve us now is different, it’s okay, but different and from my experience it tastes much worse than our favourite.

We know they are the same great chefs and that they can cook our fav, but for some reason they decided to throw away the recipe and serve something new. A new customer may be delighted, but for the old ones it just isn’t it for the many different reasons highlighted in this as well as many other topics.

I hope it helps you understand.

Additionally, I think the complaints have nothing to do with the alleged elitism.
I don’t complain because I can’t find my place in GW2 or because my place was taken.
I do it because I don’t like Conquest and I don’t find it fun. I want to like it, but I can’t and since I have problems liking it, I’m not going to play it.

Now, I don’t like Conquest because GvG was so much better and I wanted it to be included here. If Anet wants people like me (and to my best knowledge there are quite a few people who share my standpoint) to play their game, they should think of adding GvG-inspired mode.

But I guess it doesn’t matter since they already have our money…

I have to agree with you cog. The things Lo lists as problems I see as strengths in the GW2 system.

~Build communication is something they will eventually handle. I’m not too torn down that they don’t have templates immediately (granted it is a little mindboggling, one of the best updates for GW1 didn’t make it to GW2, owell.)

~The traits allow you to customize your build without completely destroying what type of character you are. I love the way traits work, they’re more or less flavor that help you specialize in a way you want to play a certain build. I honestly think they have too much effect on the overall effectiveness of the builds tho. It would be nice if you were able to choose other traits just so that you could make a more unique build and not be penalized for it. Perhaps a greater focus on utility as opposed to stats would be a way to achieve this sort of result. No matter what you do though, some traits will simply be better.

~The blurring of the class lines provides the most potential of this entire game. If you were fighting in a team of 5, it lets you play proactively just by swapping weapons or perhaps trading out a couple of skills. The fact that a guardian can be very tanky, swap to a different set and quickly support an ally and then go back to tank offers a very dynamic look at the way a match can be played. Of course, this dynamic is severely injured by the fact that team fights don’t generally go above 3 people and shouldn’t ever last more than a minute or two at most. If that were altered, this dynamic combat potential could be truly unleashed.

~I can’t help but agree with the choice of weapon skills. For the most part, it simplified the skill selection system without completely abandoning it. What is good about it is that if you were to randomly throw some skills together, there is a pretty good chance they will be somewhat useful. In GW1, if you picked skills at random, most likely it would be an aweful bar. This helps to introduce new players to the game with a smaller learning curve and doesn’t technically hurt the ability to scale with difficulty (that comes from game type choice.)

~Now, elite skills are definately a whole different beast in GW2. I had hoped they would be a little closer to what the devs said they would be. I could imagine being in a team fight, 5 on 5. The game is making a change and the quintessential moment breaks. You could decide to use a game altering skill that you possibly won’t get another chance to use or you could gamble and save it. If you use it, you could push the game in your favor but at the cost of your elite skill. If they had a team oriented combat and had the elite system they promised, it would of been an amazing dynamic to have a skill that was literally game changing but could pretty much be used no more than once or twice in a given match. BTW, weapon choices are basically the equivalent of elites in GW2. In gw1, you would name the elite skill to define what build you were running since that basically decided what you did. In GW2, the weapon choice takes that spot.

~The watering down I don’t think is something intrinsic of the skill usage. It’s the fact that there is less of an ability to punish someone for doing something risky. I mean, it definitely exists, but it amounts to back capping someone for doing something risky. That’s it. The way you play together is what has been watered down. There is actually far more complexity in the way skills are used in GW2 than in GW1. Cross profession combos is a great example (another thing which is considerably hurt by the lack of team fight ability.)

BUT I appreciate you reading the article and I do think you see the problems as they arise, you just need to be better pointed to the source of the problem, not the symptoms

Added: At leman. I love that analogy. Best one I’ve seen so far.

Added Again: The biggest problem with GW1 balance at the start was how effective teams of 8x were. Like 8 eles and etc. Other than that, gw1 at the start was pretty decent balance wise. I personally think letting 8 of one thing be effective is a good thing just so long it can be beaten by occasionally. Another way to reduce the learning curve by giving players an easy build to help coach them slowly into the game.

There are some very legitimate claims regarding GW1 vs. GW2, don’t get me wrong. I totally understand that you loved a certain style, and the fact that GW2 deviated is sad bones. I spent my college years playing WoW with friends, and I slowly watched as Blizzard took every single thing I enjoyed about Enhancement shaman away bit by bit.

As a different example, Naf Naf Grill (anyone in the Chicagoland area? Best pitas I’ve had in my life) changed their hummus recipe to include more lemon. It’s noticeable, and it’s unfortunate. We know why they did it, but it’s a bummer.

I understand bummers. Totally.

Some of the disconnects I’ve read, however, seem to be leaping to unfounded conclusions. It’s very possible that this game has less depth. It’s very possible that the meta will be boiled down to the exact same comps, and that diversity will give way to the same team comp per map.

But would we know in 1.5 months? Who masters any game in 1.5 months? Where was GW1 PvP 1.5 months after release? Well-developed meta? Clear understanding of all of the appropriate builds and how a team works together? Were people as precise and coordinated after 1.5 months as they were after 4 years?

Again, I’m not saying this game is going to rise as the greatest thing ever. I understand that enjoying a gameplay for years and having a sequel deviate is disheartening. I understand that Conquest as a game mode can fall short of a slew of other game modes, and since there’s only Conquest, you’re left with little option.

It’s just tiresome to see people jump to such bold conclusions about the game sometimes. The OP has made interesting points. You’ve made interesting points. However, many points just seem to make unsupported generalizations about the game.

At times I feel like I’m the only one who doesn’t mind the fact that ANet is taking a more methodical approach to releasing e-sports with GW2. If a slower, steadier approach ends up killing the game’s potential for being in e-sports regardless of the game’s actual potential, then I’ll be disappointed in the gaming community in general.

Upon launching GW1, starting it up, and embarking on what would become the longest stretch of time I ever played a single game, there was something I realized. GW1 competitive play had a lot of potential. There was a lot of depth, it was quickly evident. I was ok with not being perfect at it in 1.5 months because I could easily tell that there was a lot to that game. GW2 pvp is not the same. I can see the path I need to walk to improve myself, most of it falls on my individual ability to improve. There are some tweaks here and there about communicating quicker and perhaps a more responsive reaction towards calls for help, but that’s it. The depth of game is not just shallower, it’s practically dried up in comparison.

It was probably a month into the game, constantly doing GvG and I realized that the flag stand was remarkably important. So, I created a crip shot ranger who had empathy and apply poison. I would focus 100% on running the flag and making sure they were unable to go get their flag. This caused our rank to skyrocket up to about rank 30-40 until everyone else started to follow suit. So, to answer your question, no.. it was by no means developed a month and a half into the game. But I could sit back and see the game for what it was. I am not discussing balance of the game, I am talking about the skills it takes to play this game.

It is evident to anyone who plays this game for about a week what set of skills are needed to be effective. Individual skill bar usage, management of health, positioning, communication, reaction, and pre-planning. It is definitely a formidable list of skills needed, but it is a list of skills from a different genre of game and in no way mimics the game Anet spat out the first time. I as a player have the most fun when I feel like I am part of a team. A game that fights to place cohesive battle techniques above individual talent. GW1 was kitten close to that, and it was the only game I have ever found even close to that set of skills. GW2 is not even the slightest bit near that.

Btw, I in no way “jumped” to any conclusion. That’s kinda why I wrote it in 5 posts. In regards to generalizations, that is the step you need to make in order to analyze something. You need to take one step back and ask how does this concept fit into the entire abstract game play we have in front of us? It is analysis that can be done, and I argue I did that above. If you had difficulty following the analysis you can read it again or just ask in any particular part you think I jumped to a conclusion in. I rather enjoy when people dissect that, it serves to only allow me to improve my argument the second time through.

O, and you claim they are taking a methodical approach. The point of this argument is to say that in their approach, in their attempt to analyze their game and other games, they failed to inspect something. They failed to look at the first game they gave us. They didn’t take away the appropriate lessons and didn’t understand what made that game what it was. If you want me to support that claim there, I can do it. I know that through their production of the game, the game itself was lost to them. So yes, they are in fact taking a slower methodical approach, the problem is they took a left turn when they needed to take a right and their slow approach is taking them down a path no gamer wants to see them walk down (yes, another statement not entirely backed up by evidence, but hopefully my original article helps to back this up assuming you agree with it.)

@Diage: I wasn’t saying you were jumping to conclusions, it was just the impression I got from a few other posts from other people. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to elaborate on your opinions, and it finally honed in on exactly why mine differs:

I much prefer a game/experience where individual skill can shine, as I have no reliable pool of friends to pull from for games that require a team. I can play games that involve teams, but if I can’t make plays myself independent of the rest of my teammates, I get irritated. I’m a more introverted type who focuses on personal excellence, and I tend to work well as an individual trusted to operate properly within a group instead of as a regimented cog in the wheel. That isn’t just for games, but in the workplace as well.

I’m not saying it’s any better than any other type of person. Far from it. There’s a lot of merit to a game requiring the type of playstyle that GW1 seems to have required, and I find it unfortunate that no other games have capitalized on that niche yet.

I wonder how impactful additional game types would be on GW2, beyond people just having an alternate outlet to PvP that isn’t Conquest. Would it create a deeper meta with different objectives? Would it just be a different meta that’s still shallow? It could very well be that the game mechanics themselves will hamstring the meta in the long run, but I’m not convinced quite yet.

Also, regarding it being evident to anyone who plays for a week what skills are needed to be effective, that could be because many of the skills happen to be generally effective in one way or another. However, if you’re trying to say that after a week you’ll know the exact optimal build for the class, I’d throw the challenge flag. There are various “cheese” builds out there, as well as some “standard use this in a pug or you’ll get yelled at” builds, but I think that’s par for the course. They have certain purposes, but they’re by no means “the” builds.

I suppose it also depends on who you’re talking about. Top tier PvPers will come at the problem differently than the general public. The build that has been treating me nicely isn’t something I’ve seen on anyone else, but it gets the job done in the situations I use it for (namely hot-join and WvWvW). I’ve heard successes coming from almost every weapon combination out there, from longbow/_-axe to rifle/sword to hammer/mace-shield to gs/axe-shield to axe-axe/axe-shield.

So yes, you can play for a week to find something that might be effective for you, but it wouldn’t necessarily be effective for me on the same class. And I think it was about this time that we’ve come back to the fact that GW2 focuses more on the individual and less on the team that’s causing an issue for some. Of course, there also isn’t a permutation explosion with the sheer number of abilities/combinations you can put together, so people probably feel like they figure it out because they find moderate success, instead of hunting for that diamond in the rough build that evolves the meta.

Anyway, I’m rambling again (see: above wall of text). In short, I personally find merit to having a potential spotlight shine on individuals, as long as the game mode still requires sufficient teamwork. It allows for “marquis” players to make more big plays, as well as potentially draw in more fans. Displays of individual prowess are admirable, and something a person can look up to and strive for more easily than unshakable team effort.

But that’s just me. I think there’s merit to both styles of game, and the subject of e-sports is a wide one indeed. The game has a long way to go in several areas if it wants to pierce e-sports-dom, but I like to think it’ll get there, if only because I love the game.

Bring back the kittene Gee v Geevees!

I wonder how impactful additional game types would be on GW2, beyond people just having an alternate outlet to PvP that isn’t Conquest. Would it create a deeper meta with different objectives? Would it just be a different meta that’s still shallow? It could very well be that the game mechanics themselves will hamstring the meta in the long run, but I’m not convinced quite yet.

Also, regarding it being evident to anyone who plays for a week what skills are needed to be effective, that could be because many of the skills happen to be generally effective in one way or another. However, if you’re trying to say that after a week you’ll know the exact optimal build for the class, I’d throw the challenge flag. There are various “cheese” builds out there, as well as some “standard use this in a pug or you’ll get yelled at” builds, but I think that’s par for the course. They have certain purposes, but they’re by no means “the” builds.

I will mention the second paragraph first, I did mention above that I was not talking about actual balance of the game. I had hoped that would imply I wasn’t talking about literal skills. In any case, I wasn’t. I didn’t mean for it to sound as if I was talking about builds or any other thing like that. By skills, I meant your own abilities.

Now, regarding different game types.

Here is the thing with those, if they introduced new game types they have basically three options. Leave it unbalanced, switch their main game type and balance around it, or create a split in skills so they can balance both game types.

Now, the reason you can’t have two different game types with the same skill set and maintain an even balance is due to the fact that the different games require a different set of abilities. Because of this, it means certain skills themselves will become very powerful in one game type while very weak in the other. Maybe, in one game type something is perfectly balanced but in the other it is way over powered. To nerf it would hurt the balance of the other game type as well.

There is merit to the idea of having game types you don’t balance around. They are games that people can just go in and play around and have fun in. Non-competitive modes essentially. This is not what I want to see from a team oriented combat game mode. But, for the record, I am all for these types of game modes.

Splitting skills on the other hand, would be excessive. It would over complicate a game that honestly needs to maintain a “simplistic as possible” approach. It is a possibility, but not one I personally would like to see.

The thing I would like to see is them switch what they’re balancing around.

O, and in regards to the final statement in the first paragraph I quoted, I argued above that the mechanics of gw2 actually would make for a fantastic meta in a team oriented setting.

Something else I want to point out by the way. The thing I would like to see the most is for them just to reorient their current game mode. It is an easy activity. All they would need to do is make it so that capping points need to be done sequentially as opposed to in any order. Then, allow some form of point scoring that could help benefit from that. It would create a very tug-of-war style combat and still maintain the capture point theme. It also truly redefine how important those secondary objectives are and change how you go about handling them. To get them at the cost of getting middle would be detrimental, but if they help you to cap the center then it would be very powerful. So in each combat, you would have to decide if the alternative objective is worth the loss of a player.

You start to see these far more advanced considerations develop and secondary objectives become way more powerful. Imagine the cat in khylo. You would need to learn to focus on it properly and determine if the loss is worth it. As someone at the point, figure out who the best person to handle it would be, it could be different each match based on what you need at the point you’re fighting over. Not to mention the increase depth you would obtain by longer team fights with more important positioning and more impactful cross class combos.

It would just be a far more deep game and in no way more complex if that were the case. It opens the doors to cheese builds which I think are EXTREMELY important. Honestly, builds that have a remarkably low skill cap and still do a decent job are builds I think MUST exist in a game that is focused around teams. These builds allow players to learn to play with each other without asking for deep interrelated play. They also allow people to just go in with random people and do decently well. This helps to greatly reduce the learning curve of a game that would otherwise have a high learning curve.

You can’t make World of Warcraft without also destroying your game.

raw.6857:

You can’t make World of Warcraft without also destroying your game.

Define Guildwars, what does the title mean to you?

Long but fantastic read. As an avid GW1 player and suffering from severe nostalgia and sense of lost potential I completely agree with everything that has been posted.

I would really love if the GW team responded to some of these issues.

@Cog Although, as has been stated, GW1 required amazing teamwork, you could always stand out. Throughout the game’s life there were celebrities in the GW world, people known for their outstanding style, their skills or their tactics. It is true that GvG required teams to act symbiotically in order to win, but you could also excel and most certainly be noticed by many.

I really think just removing duel-proffessions would’ve made the game much easier to balance and much less complicated w/o having to cull the build/skill variety as much as they did with GW2.

Is this post bugged? I can’t see the OP or any replies.

It seems like all is about elite vs casual.
You can make enjoyable game for casual and hardcore players, if this game is a solo game. Sc2 is a good example.

I’m not sure you can make a teamplay-game enjoyable for both elite and casual players. “Lf r13++ syndrom” is part of Esport Teamplay game I think.

Personnaly, I don’t see that’s wrong with the idea of training harder and harder to reach high ranks, being famous, getting a pro friend list (basics Gw1 pvp objectives). It’s not fun. Fun is a short-term vision. Esport is about something like self-acomplishment.

Most MMO’s are moving towards dumbing down your options when coming up with your Class and Spec.

WoW for example, It’s removed more and more options when changing your class or specializing it.

Anet has done the same..

Look at older MMO’s like DAOC and GW1, You have a large amount of things to do.

DAOC had CL’s/ML’s/Artifacts/Class Skills/RA’s that you had to manage and know how to play against…The Combat in general was Slower..but it was better managed and honestly played far better then the crap that is GW2.

The only game so far that has released recently that gives you a large number of options when expanding your class is Rift. Warhammer Before it was the other game that gave options.

Seis, you bring up a fantastic point I forgot to bring up in this article.

The question he said, is elite versus casual. Now, that is not entirely true. My primary gripe is that they chose casual explicitly over elite. I completely concur that a good game, particularly an esport attempt, ought to appeal to both.

Now, I want to talk about a couple of points to explain why this is still capable of being casual friendly while also being a team sport. Most of the argument I won’t go into detail about can be dragged from my initial argument. Being casual friendly to me is all about discussing how hard is it to pick up the game and be decent at it? If they do it perfectly, you shouldn’t NEED a team to be able to at least play at some level, however, having a team means you can play at an almost exponetially higher level. Consider dota style games. Those are more team oriented that GW2 but less team oriented than what I would like, but even in those games you can see this concept played out. Another good example in real life is soccer. You can all come together and form a pick up game and you won’t be fantastic, but you can still and enjoy the game as a team. However, to move to the next level of skill it takes more than individual ability, it takes team work.

The problem with these games that stress individual skill above all else is that the skill cap isn’t quite as high. Certainly, you can point to SC2 and say it has a high skill cap and it most certainly does, but that is the nature of an RTS. They are incredibly complex games where the basic idea is very simple but the game play is complex. That’s a fantastic model, for an RTS.

Now we need to ask, what kind of game are we playing? What sort of game play should we expect from that game? It happens to be an RPG, an mmorpg at that. One thing we’ve come to expect for a playstyle of mmorpgs is a playstyle that, at least attempts to, promote playing together. It seems reasonable that when you pick up a game of a certain type, you will encounter that game throughout. It is borderline false advertising to call this pvp combat system that of an mmorpg combat system. It has the pacing and feel of an FPS.

That argument is an argument I made long long ago on guildwars 2 guru. People told me I couldn’t possibly know that until I play the game and eventually the thread died. But alas, you said the right words that made me remember that post and the argument I made in it.

The point:

The problem with GW1, as I stated earlier, was barriers to entry. This also is a direct relationship to how casual friendly a game is. But, creating a game that is more casual friendly that focused on elite players is a game that can’t stand up to a true competitive mind set. Further, when playing a game we expect to play a certain way. It is almost unethical to pull such a switch on people who expect one thing and you deliver something completely different. Sure, it may be good, may be even excellent. But they will all be depressed a little because they had their hopes up for something else.

Another quality piece from Diage.

Just letting you know that I’m following this topic and will try to contribute some more when I have time.

My biggest gripe about the game is just not having fun which is a derivative of many flaws I believe the game to have and most of which are being carefully analysed in this very thread.

This must especially painful to the Devs who use ‘fun’ as a mantra. They made a great PvE and WvW game that in my view has a PvP which isn’t nowhere near the fun that both PvE and WvW can bring.

In Ha, “lame” team were a good alternative for casual, since builds were really simple to use. Even with a low ranked team, you were able to wipe good balanced sometimes. (but no real hope to win more the 3 first maps).

I’ve never played lame, but I always tought it was something cool, like a normal reaction to the elitism of balanced team.

I sincerly think Anet was inspired by Iway, Sways, etc to build pvp mecha in Gw2.

> Define Guildwars, what does the title mean to you?

Guilds and Wars, both things that are lacking for Guild Wars 2. But maybe the ‘2’ is some sort of wild metaphor, like “This is Guild Wars, too (even if you can’t see it)”.

This thread is too good to be burried under a ton of random QQ about duels and whatnot.

It is without doubt one of the most spot-on threads in regards to GW vs GW2 comparison I have read so far; it explains in a very clear and argumentative manner as to why GW2 will never be a true team game, and why most players who were drawn by the innovative pvp design that is GWpvp will never be able to enjoy GW2pvp to the extent they enjoyed the pvp of GW – or they won’t enjoy it at all.
As a player who still plays GW I can honestly say that the pvping there just FEELS a whole lot better, despite all the imbalances present, than GW2 pvp does. Mind that I am not claiming that different game modes (ranging from many many broken builds in TA to the boredom fest that is HoH relic running) were perfect; I admit I raged a lot over lame builds and complained a fair deal too over general lack of proper balance, but it all pales in comparison to GW2, where I cannot even bring myself to bother anymore (minus random posts ridiculing players who believe GW2 is actually a pvp game, or to point out other GW-GW2 related issues).

Would love to see a dev comment in this gem of a thread.