Guild Wars 2

I don’t think anyone here is malicious to the point of wanting ANet not to make cash, and with the semi-random way they profit off of the game I’d imagine it’s hard to predict what’ll sell or turn-off their customers – and it makes a lot of sense to have as many players as possible become potential gemstore buyers.

Assuming the megaserver was intended as a means of maintaining player enjoyment and activity, I can’t imagine the list of “negatives” attached being longer than “development time”. Even with a large amount of disappointed players, the reception to the megaserver has been pretty darn positive, so I wouldn’t imagine it being in danger of being “abandoned” if players had the choice not to play on it.

Well, I kind of liked the idea of ANet going “okay, GW1 was clearly too much for us to handle, we’ll work out what we can do in GW2”. The idea of a ‘reset’ or a ‘second chance’ wasn’t altogether a bad one, I just wasn’t expecting them to tone it down by this much. I’m REALLY hoping they have more in the works and that this isn’t the extent of “how much they can chew”.

Vayne.8563:

Furthermore, in Guild Wars 1 you couldn’t change skills without going back to town which means starting over. Here you can alter skills as you go, swap out weapons, even traits now.

So in Guild Wars 1 you had a huge variety in the town and as soon as you went into the world, you had your eight skills…end of story.

I don’t consider that a limiting factor in the least. It meant having to account for a wider array of enemy builds and not just on a ‘per encounter’ basis, and I think that helped the variety a lot more than allowing them to be changed wherever as long as you’re out of combat.

Not to say that I don’t appreciate the ‘build on the go’ that GW2 has. It’s just that I don’t have as many tools this time around, and at least I can mix and match my current “tools” whenever and where ever I want.

Shanaeri Rynale.6897:

The biggest limiting factor for PvE in GW2 isn’t the number of builds, but the simple AI, condition capping, dodging being the best damage mitigation and cheesy boss mechanics which effectively nullifies whole swathes of potential builds.

Zing. I hoped that it was a learned lesson from GW1 that static enemies with an insane amount of artificial difficulty does not an engaging PvE make.

I heard that enemy AI is harder to maintain and keep ‘interesting’ in a large open-world, but that’s just something I’ve only heard.

Vayne.8563:

Smith.1826:

I don’t see much harm in allowing the option, provided the megaserver is what’s default. That way, players new to the game are brought into a lively and active environment and players who were upset at their ‘dead’ home server could run into other people.

And if the choice was implemented and the players actually preferred ‘dividing’ themselves to surround themselves with their own community, wouldn’t that show that the megaserver wasn’t actually the best idea?

I can only see the harm if the game was at a drastically low point of player activity and the megaserver was a desperate attempt to stitch the remaining few together, but I don’t think the game is close to that.

But there is harm. What if the people who opt for the main servers don’t get enough people on their main servers to make it worth it?

The harm is in the fact that Anet would have to maintain far more servers than just mega servers, which costs money. Raising expenses isn’t in any companies best interest.

That’s the best reason I can understand why ANet is doing this: Not to increase gameplay, not to increase community, but to save money. Because even if those ‘home’ servers ended up being pretty quiet, it still gives back the choices that were taken away from a lot of players, a choice I’d gladly throw money at to earn back.

Are there any sources that highlight how much money this megaserver technology is saving them, and how much it cost the previous servers to maintain?

Poplolita.2638:

I’d rather have FREE content every 2 weeks, than to pay for an expansion.

It’s basically free vs pay. In my case, free win, not even up to discussion.

I doubt anyone, if presented the choice between ‘free’ and ‘notfree’, would choose to pay for it, provided the product remained the same whether or not we gave threw money at it. It’s more about the strings attached to the word “free”, and the need to still make money off of us.

It’s also about the idea of how payment models can affect the quality and delivery of the content and gameplay, and whether or not they could provide more quality content provided we had to buy it.

I don’t see much harm in allowing the option, provided the megaserver is what’s default. That way, players new to the game are brought into a lively and active environment and players who were upset at their ‘dead’ home server could run into other people.

And if the choice was implemented and the players actually preferred ‘dividing’ themselves to surround themselves with their own community, wouldn’t that show that the megaserver wasn’t actually the best idea?

I can only see the harm if the game was at a drastically low point of player activity and the megaserver was a desperate attempt to stitch the remaining few together, but I don’t think the game is close to that.

Vayne.8563:

There’s another aspect people really aren’t considering. You can move and cast in Guild Wars 2. Part of the skill is actually in how you play,. when you dodge, which wasn’t as often a factor in Guild Wars 1.

It’s not that I’m not considering it, I just don’t feel them entirely worth mentioning. They’re far from unique features, and cast-while-move is something I particularly don’t like as it reminds me too much of other typical MMOs like WoW. I’m much more a fan of the risk/reward scenarios that exist when you have to commit to attacks and other actions.

Dodge buttons/mechanics have existed for a long time, generally in cases where they favor more precise timing (dodge rolls in GW2 are full of invulnerability frames).

Vayne.8563:

But there’s your problem right there. Your great sword warrior. It’s like sayign there are a ton of options for sword warriors in Guild Wars 1. There really weren’t.

As a sword war, I could focus on a sword elite or a strength elite (sometimes even a tactics elite), then choose to compliment it with sword/strength/tactic skills, adrenaline/energy skills, and secondary profession skills. This was just PvE. Even without limiting myself to one weapon moveset, I felt like I had far more choice in GW1 than in GW2 regarding my skillbar, way more choice.

Vayne.8563:

Edit: But it should have MORE build diversity than it has now. I’m just saying it will never have, nor should it have, the type of build diversity that Guild Wars 1 had.

I’m with you there. Nearing it’s two year anniversary, GW2’s granted us a few new traits and equipment stat combinations. A little over two years after it’s release, GW1 acquired it’s third expansion pack worth of skills. I want them to find that middle ground: GW1 was more than they could chew, GW2 is way too little.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Smith.1826:

And this is the part where the food analogy starts to fall apart in relation to their payment model

. . . why? I’m not paying anything for it.

Because if “no one” pays anything for the “Thanksgiving dinner”, no one gets Thanksgiving dinner, maybe? GW2’s content isn’t necessarily “free”, and they wouldn’t be able to provide any if it wasn’t making some form of profit.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

BlueZone.4236:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

BlueZone.4236:

Serophous.9085:

BlueZone.4236:

Yeah, I like my content the same way I like my meals. Served on a plate rather than drip fed.

Except you would take said food on said plate, shove it all into your mouth at once, finish the meal in one big gulp, then complain two seconds later about there not being any more food.

No, I’d eat it like a normal person, leave satisfied, and hope for another pleasant experience the next time round.
No need to project your experience onto mine.

And no need to impugn my dining habits of eating a salad and then the entree, either . . .

Yeah…no clue what you’re talking about. If you want to partition your meal and call parts of them salad, entrees and desserts. A bit silly, but be my guest.

You’ve never had a multiple course dinner, have you? Ever eaten at an Olive Garden? Any restaurant where you sit down and you have things come to you as they’re ready, like appetizers, then entree, then dessert?

Really?

There’s Olive Garden and other tasty restaurants, and then there’s Thanksgivin’ where I gorge upon a horde of food on the table. Ultimately it’s preference.

But my posts here aren’t concerning which is better – I think there’s equal amounts of opportunities where they shine (chunks of good DLC vs. a good chunk in an expansion) – it’s how I feel about the “free food” ANet’s giving us. And this is the part where the food analogy starts to fall apart in relation to their payment model

I’d argue the PvE is more fun and pronounced in GW2 than GW1, but the lack of build variety and diversity compared to GW1 hurts. Even though it’s PvE was very basic and shallow, I found a lot more longevity in the layouts and builds I could create. Like I said in previous other threads: GW2’s gameplay + GW1’s customization = GOOD GRAVY!

Mada.5319:

Additionally, gw1 and gw2 were made by completely different people. Don’t let the ArenaNet name fool you. Almost everyone who set the foundations of GW1 had left the company by the time GW2 got into the picture.

This is very true.

phys.7689:

Smith.1826:

phys.7689:

and i dont consider myself a majority, i merely say there are a signifigant number of people effected. I base more of what i say on things i can logically, or reasonably discern. The inconsistencies in how well the megaserver design fits/limits other systems.

as for majority? i dont know, but i do know a signifigant number of communities, and people will feel the effects, and even if a group is not a majority on its own, you dont help yourself out by alienating large groups of people when you dont have to. The best solutions dont just cater to the top 51% and alienate 20% here, 10% here, 5% here. The best solutions try not to be divisive, you make descions that some like, and some feel neutral about, and a few may actively dislike. You dont want to make solutions that alienate people if you can avoid it.

Which begs the question: How urgent was it to get the megaserver up and going? I can’t imagine the newly released S2 content being all that hindered without it. I can see someone being bummed that they “picked” a server that wasn’t all that active but that could’ve been helped by having more accurate player counts (having everything say “high” didn’t help), and the concern was mostly invalidated with guesting. Provided that the scaling systems are actually working, player count shouldn’t be an issue in the open-world ever, or rather it shouldn’t be a concern.

I still find it incredibly interesting how much both the mega server and new trait progression limit player choice.

to honestly answer this question?
imo, the most likely answer is that they wanted to have these systems in place before they launched in china, because although they hadnt hammered them out, they thought these type of changes would best if players never experienced the previous systems.

Therefore they rushed them because they needed them in place, and wanted to have them tested by china release.

Yeah that’s pretty much how I feel. Dont get me wrong, they’re both solid concepts and I can see how the megaserver and new trait progression can provide more gameplay to some players. Its a given that most new ideas all have their pros and cons, but in these two cases I can imagine many of those cons being stamped out due to a more thorough and steady implementation.

Sure, the “majority” can be happy, but like you said it’s about making everyone happy. While it’s naive to literally expect everyone to be happy, there are a handful of things they can change to help.

phys.7689:

and i dont consider myself a majority, i merely say there are a signifigant number of people effected. I base more of what i say on things i can logically, or reasonably discern. The inconsistencies in how well the megaserver design fits/limits other systems.

as for majority? i dont know, but i do know a signifigant number of communities, and people will feel the effects, and even if a group is not a majority on its own, you dont help yourself out by alienating large groups of people when you dont have to. The best solutions dont just cater to the top 51% and alienate 20% here, 10% here, 5% here. The best solutions try not to be divisive, you make descions that some like, and some feel neutral about, and a few may actively dislike. You dont want to make solutions that alienate people if you can avoid it.

Which begs the question: How urgent was it to get the megaserver up and going? I can’t imagine the newly released S2 content being all that hindered without it. I can see someone being bummed that they “picked” a server that wasn’t all that active but that could’ve been helped by having more accurate player counts (having everything say “high” didn’t help), and the concern was mostly invalidated with guesting. Provided that the scaling systems are actually working, player count shouldn’t be an issue in the open-world ever, or rather it shouldn’t be a concern.

I still find it incredibly interesting how much both the mega server and new trait progression limit player choice.

Fingers have been crossed for awhile now in the hopes of receiving more options to reduce particle/ability effects, moreso now than ever with the megaserver.

Becka Williams.4978:

One person’s griefing is another person’s fair play. Not to say that I disagree about this being griefing, but it’s far more subjective than the other reports. Except maybe Inappropriate character name (but I bet they don’t get many of those, and certainly not nearly as many as they’d get for griefing)

Not to mention that they should be putting more emphasis on making the ‘griefing’ impossible. This still sucks, though.

Olba.5376:

So I paid the box price and I should be willing to give up my access to the game unless I’m willing to fork over more?

Did you pay for access to the “game”, or just the content that came with the box price? More importantly, who has more of a right to make that choice, the people who bought it or the people who made it?

Bear in mind, the need to pay for content wouldn’t necessarily mean they’re trying to nickel and dime us, I’d hope it would mean that they can only release completely free content – which they’ve been doing for nearly two years – for so long before more strings get attached.

Olba.5376:

You do realize that this is one of the reasons the people who do not play subscription-based games are the way they are?

Of course, but what you get for your subscription fee is more ambiguous. It’s not the same as actually being able to see something on the shelf and choose to buy it, you have to hope that what they develop with your money is to your liking.

Olba.5376:

But you are right. The playerbase is accustomed to free content. What this means is that the bar that an expansion has to clear to be called a good expansion is set pretty kitten high.

…

That their goal is to deliver expansion-like content with it. If they ever truly succeed in that, then any hope for an expansion pack is basically dead forever.

Bear in mind: I’m not just talking about an expansion pack, I’m talking about paid content, period. They’ve already taken steps towards this, too, with certain content having a price tag if you missed it’s release.

Generally, there’s this underlying belief that if Anet followed a more traditional payment model – similar to their previous title – it would improve the quality of the content. That may be true in a few areas (no cash shop = no black lion slotmachines), but ultimately it comes down to whether the content is true or not. The belief may also be partially fueled by how Diablo III turned out after removing the AH and switching to an expansion format.

When it comes down to how I feel about it, it’s mainly because I strongly disagree with turning real cash into virtual cash. Ideally, I’d want a game where the replayability is strong and enjoyable without ever feeling the desire to ‘speed it up’ through a credit card. How do you think GW2’s cash shop would’ve ended up without gold>gems? The idea is an interesting one, and something I hope GW2 is able to grow out of in the future.

Olba.5376:

Well my perspective is a bit different. I think that the long term for Guild Wars 2 is in the PvP scene. That being WvW and sPvP. I just don’t see how they could make a lengthy sustainable PvE that would keep everyone satisfied for years without risking a lot. They can’t put in a gear grind and putting in a cosmetic grind runs the risk of lowering their Gem Store profits significantly. That isn’t an issue in PvP, where your primary goal is to improve your proficiency at playing the game.

Heck, coming from one of those horrible f2p games myself, I truly and honestly hope that PvP does become a major thing in GW2. Because I absolutely love how fair it is. There is no gap between someone who spends 300$ every month on Gems and someone who spends none.

I’d agree, so it’s really sad to see that SPvP is the least supported of the ‘game modes’, with PvE and WvW being the others so to speak. I can’t speak for everyone, but I just don’t find it that fun. It doesn’t feel all to different from the PvP I’ve played in other MMOs, and I never really enjoyed them there, either. They were just extrinsically rewarding.

Olba.5376:

Expansions also go against one of the things I absolutely love about Guild Wars 2. The fact that you can play it whenever you want. If they start releasing expansions, you’ll quickly run into a situation where someone who would otherwise play the game will not because they would now need to buy an expansion pack.

I don’t see why that’s a problem, because I’m not sure why one should feel privileged enough to access something they didn’t pay for. You already have to pay $50 to play the game, but your argument here could be used to support the game going entirely free-to-play.

That’s not something I’d want. Not because I don’t want “f2p scum/noobs” in my game, I just think the $50 is well worth it. I may have issues with their continued payment model, delivery of content, etc. but the experience of playing it for the initial period deserves that pricetag.

Maybe that’s one of the larger concerns with providing additional “buy to play” content: The playerbase may be too accustomed to the “free” content.

GW2 is far from “F2P”. An F2P game is one that has every motivation to add a set of gear that you can only buy from the shop at a price that would take months of dedicated play to afford. That or a credit card. And that is something that literally kills games. It murders them, defiles every orifice in their corpse, takes said corpse and turns it into a steak to sell to the rich guys.

A F2P game is just that: A game that is free-to-play. While GW2 is a bit weird in being a buy-to-play game that essentially turns into a F2P game, it’s continued support is afterwards mostly F2P, and in a similar vein as those other F2P games you dread: Some rewards are affected by money and RNG, reward progression is ‘drawn-out’ by design, and throwing actual cash at the game can progress you towards better stats.

Of course, that’s all lacking a bit of context: The ‘gap’ in meaningful stats isn’t that big. The funny part is, even if it was, the game’s zerg-based, open-world emphasis would negate it (maybe that thought could warrant it’s own thread…)

Regardless, my point here is that while there’s far less ‘urgency’ in the loot hunt in GW2, I can’t imagine much longevity or player activity without it. And if every reward was easy and cheap to get, I don’t see why anyone would want to buy gems with cash (unless the exchange rate was nuts, maybe?)

In summation, I think of GW2 as a F2P game, it may not be as “bad” as other F2P games, and I still don’t like it as a F2P game.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

i dun want an expansion.
i want free content via living story.
i speak for myself.

but i think there could be a lot of others that feel the same.

You know, it’s kind of dawned on me that I don’t have much of a preference in regards to the “delivery” of the content.

I love expansion packs. For the most part, they’ve always expanded on my gameplay and I always considered it the best way to deliver more content. On the other hand, I loved the Fallout DLC’s and didn’t feel that the way the content was deilivered diminished their quality in the least. Opened my mind at the time, big time.

So either or is fine. As long as the content is good, I’d likely enjoy both paths equally.

My issue has everything to do with how it all gets funded. I wouldn’t like a “free to play” expansion any more than their current method of content delivery. Not to question the quality of the content itself, I just don’t like the “F2P” model, period.

I can understand the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, but I still don’t like the cost of it. I’m not much of an RPer but I generally share the same concern.

When it comes to what I’d want from an “ideal MMO”, a huge amount of players wasn’t on there. I’m much more of a solo player not just because of the freedom I have, but also because I find myself more immersed into the game world. For the most part, I used to have a choice regarding how populated my gameworld was and I’m upset I lost that.

phys.7689:

that said, i doubt they are doing that bad, but i do think, purely based on my own guess, that they are at a low in the NA/EU market right now, hopefully they can bring somethings to revitalize those markets.
regardless the q2 reports will show the full picture of whats going on now/recently.

I don’t think the game is anywhere near “dying”, but I also don’t think I’d say there are more “active” players than “inactive” players. For me personally, I’d imagine an “active” player who logs in weekly to daily and who occasionally may take a couple week break. “Inactive” players may have a current GW2 schedule opposite of that, logging in maybe weekly to monthly.

Those are very subjective terms and I’m just merely saying how I view the situation. I also don’t think this discrepancy is a bad or unnatural thing. I think any worthwhile, well made, and frequently supported game can maintain a nice little playerbase. But I don’t think any game, regardless of quality or genre, can maintain anywhere near half of the total amount of “possible” players after the content gets initially exhausted.

But like I said, that’s all fine. I don’t view my favorite games any different, either. I may invest a lot of time into them but I can see how others couldn’t, same goes for GW2. This also isn’t ignoring or possibly berating anyone who does thoroughly enjoy, support, and still play the game; honestly, more power to you if you love the game. I just don’t think expecting an overwhelming size of active players is all that realistic.

So, am I ‘active’ or ‘inactive’? Well, I suppose I’d lean more towards inactive, certainly more active now than LS Season 1, but not by a bit. While I could part blame on the devs for not “grabbing my attention”, it’s mainly that I’m just bored of the game right now. It’s not really their fault. I have spent a load of time in the game and certainly feel like the $50 was well worth it, hence my first post: It might not hold a long term interest, exploring the game for the first time is an awesome experience, and I really am glad 3.7 million get to do that.

If it seems like I repeat myself in this post, my bad. Been a long night..!

I’m hoping some posts got deleted, because if he’s replying to me then he’s making no sense _

Then that should be 3.7 million people who get to experience GW2 for the first time. GJ on Anet’s part.

phys.7689:

bleh i disagree, while i definately think, when they first came out these proffesions were unbalanced, i dont believe that as they worked on the balance they were unbalanced, or any more unbalanced than any one can hope to be with two different things.

GW1 initially dealt with a very precarious balance. I don’t consider that much of an ‘excuse’ to make way and introduce more possibilities to take into consideration. I don’t disagree with the idea – more ways to play in GW2 would certainly revitalize my interest in it – but it’s all about the implementation.

The idea to add new professions/classes to GW1 wasn’t a bad one, I just think it could’ve been handled way, way better. I don’t think that new classes should never have been added, but they had to be very careful in doing so. I don’t think they were.

phys.7689:

As far as what they added? i can say that assassin and ritualist offered totally different playstyles which isnt a cosmetic thing, They rewarded different ways of thinking and natural ability tendencies, which is imo the point of new classes. What they added to the meta? well anet changed the meta a bunch of times, and the meta isnt even usually a representation of all the possibilities, its just the things people have currently found that works, and they like to use.

Mind you, that doesn’t have to be solely achieved through new classes. All the main features, mechanics, and playstyles that the new professions introduced could’ve been implemented into the existing professions. Give the Warrior some new attributes linking to shouts and toss them a spear and you’ve more-or-less just created the Paragon, for example, and Rituatalist abilities wouldn’t feel too out of place on a Monk.

Ascimator.6735:

A few months passed and people are STILL acting all entitled about this?

Well I wouldn’t say I’m “entitled”, but I still don’t agree with these changes. As a more “rewarding experience” it doesn’t make sense; the open-endedness that used to exist in progression through the PvE world was plenty rewarding. It makes way more sense as a means of ‘herding’ or spreading the population throughout the game world, but that could’ve been achieved without touching the trait progression.

Bear in mind: This is not a “doom and gloom” post; I certainly don’t think these changes spell ‘death’ for leveling, and if you’re still new to the game you’re probably going to be too engaged in the world to care. But I would argue that this new system is less enjoyable, and can certainly make replaying it a bit more tiresome.

phys.7689:

Smith.1826:

GW1 was questionably and reasonably balanced pre-Factions, it most certainly wasn’t afterwards. All of the newer professions attempted to fill niches that the preexisting six already had and didn’t really introduce a whole lot mechanically (I wouldn’t count the assassin’s potential to ignore positioning much of a “plus”).

This was made all the more frustrating by the fact that it was still the most fun and some of the most unique PvP I’ve ever experienced in an RPG.

just because you didnt like the other jobs doesnt mean other people didnt.

Where’d that come from? I wasn’t talking about how much I liked or disliked them, or how much others liked/disliked them, I was talking about what they brought to the game. Aside from the visuals – which is still ANet’s greatest strength – they didn’t bring a whole lot.

phys.7689:

Also this whole balance thing is an illusion, it has never existed anywhere. Even fighting games who play test for months and refine for years still havie teirs. Its something you just attempt to do, and keep working towards. and in that respect, all you can really say is that gw1 attempted it way more often.

Also, going by most people i have seen gw1 pvp was more respected, and enjoyed. So what does that say about the importance of balance if you are correct about balance?

My post was merely stating that I felt GW1 was initially far more balanced than what it’s become. I’m not entirely sure where the rest of this commentary is coming from, though.

Xenon.4537:

I hope you take this in the most positive light possible, as I’m honestly not trying to offend. I’m just trying to be objective and possibly help you realize something that may allow you to improve yourself.

In your post you mention 2 games: Demons Souls and GW2. Lets analyze your experience and expectations.

Demons Souls:
- You initially didn’t like it when researching it.
- You tried it and it ended up as one of your all time favorites.

GW2:
- You loved the ideas of it when doing research.
- You ended up hating it when you actually tried it.

Logically we can conclude that either your research methods are somehow flawed, or you misinterpreted the data.

You’re assuming, quite heavily, that both games didn’t end up being exactly what I thought they’d be.

Xenon.4537:

After all, watching a video or reading an article is absolutely not the same as actually playing a game.

Exactly the other half of the point I was trying to make.

Vayne.8563:

The most minimal tiniest amount of research pre launch would have told you the level cap would be higher. I would have told you, just going to the Guild Wars 2 website pre launch in the combat article, that skills would be tied to weapons and there would be less of them. That you wouldn’t have the ability to pick all your skills. That a slot was dedicated to a healing skill.

You didn’t need a degree in research to look this stuff up. You had to read the website.

Right, I said it was “painstakingly clear”, so I’m not sure why there’s a need to repeat it?

Regardless, my point is that none of that compares to actually playing the game. The inverse to this situation is coming across a game you’ve avoided because it didn’t interesting you in the slightest – and then you fall in love with it. When I first heard of Demon’s Souls I wanted nothing to do with it. 5 years after it’s release and it ends up being in my top five.

Conversely I was really excited about all the changes coming to GW2 and supported nearly all of them, hoping they could achieve with GW2 what they wanted in GW1, yet I was disappointed. And no, I don’t want a refund; it’s well within the realm of possibility to criticize something you enjoy.

Still though: Did Guild Wars 2 have to be called “Guild Wars 2”? Sure, “haters gonna hate”, this is the internet after all and there are going to be people that’ll complain regardless, but I see no harm in not calling it GW2.

Vayne.8563:

The game is almost two years old. You’d think people who didn’t like the game would have got their refund at the time they could have, and moved on. Standing around repeating it again and again doesn’t change anything.

Some would argue that that’s how the trait acquisition changes happened :P

Vayne.8563:

You ever play the Final Fantasy games. They’re all part of a series, but they’re all as different as can be.

That’s…arguable? FF1-6 are certainly not “different as can be”, and the games that really are get labeled as such: Crystal Chronicles, Tactics, and the ‘Online’ games just to name a few.

All games evolve and change. Hell World of Warcraft used the lore from Warcraft, but it’s not an RTS. Might and Magic had Heroes of Might and Magic, which is a completely different type of game.

But they’re called “World of Warcraft” and “Heroes of Might and Magic”, respectively, not “Warcraft 4” or “Might and Magic VI”. I don’t think this game should’ve been called “Guild Wars 2”, especially in regards to ‘mending disappointment’ a more appropriate title would’ve suited it more.

Vayne.8563:

A name is a name. But the information about what was going to be in this game wasn’t hidden in the bottom draw of a filing cabinet somewhere. We knew a lot about the combat of the game, the builds in the game, the way the game would work before it ever launched.

To be fair there were things we didn’t know too, but to think this game would be like Guild Wars 1 shows a lack of research.

It was painstakingly clear: GW2 was certainly a different game than GW1. During it’s release, the extent of all that wasn’t really known. Only through investing time in the game could it be made apparent.

It goes right back to what I said in my previous post. I’m not pinning ‘blame’ for ANet wanting to make a different game, and at the same time I don’t think disappointment towards GW2 not being more akin to GW1 is all unwarranted.

GW1 was questionably and reasonably balanced pre-Factions, it most certainly wasn’t afterwards. All of the newer professions attempted to fill niches that the preexisting six already had and didn’t really introduce a whole lot mechanically (I wouldn’t count the assassin’s potential to ignore positioning much of a “plus”).

This was made all the more frustrating by the fact that it was still the most fun and some of the most unique PvP I’ve ever experienced in an RPG.

Vayne.8563:

I also had had enough of build wars and I was ready for something new. You weren’t. You’re not wrong in that.

Boring, predictable, and plain old dumb enemies contributed far more to the “build wars” problem than any form of skill imbalance or other game design decision. If eliminating “build wars” was the primary concern, that could’ve been rectified by an opposition that was actually engaging to fight.

I don’t feel that GW2 really moved forward much in this regard, and I certainly don’t see the result of it as being more replayable.

But I find it hard to believe anyone could have paid close attention to this game and not realized how different it would be.

Well it’s right there in the title: Guild Wars 2. Anet is well within their rights to make a very different game as much as people have the right to be disappointed in it departing so much from it’s predecessor. “Guild Wars: Heroes of Tyria” seems far more appropriate, and can help distance the expectations by a lot.

Alex.9567:

Just think of the millions of micro transactions that must have taken place on impulse, its not that there isn’t another way, its that the current way is more profitable than we realise.

Again, it’s not a matter of questioning results. It’s the matter of how gameplay is directed/affected in the attempt to achieve these results.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

infantrydivEU.9670:

For the rewards

Seriously, pretty soon this game will have more weapons/armor originating from the gem store than from the actual game.

Oh well, the woes of a F2P game I suppose.

Are people OK with this? I’d actually almost prefer at this rate to not have new stuff added if it’s only gem store based.

What happened to doing a cool quest line or killing a difficult boss to get a weapon skin in games?

FYI

GW2 is a B2P game. And the amount of Weapons and Armors from the core game outnumber Gemstore Weapons and Armors by more than 10 fold. What you need to complain about is that there needs to be MORE Gemstore goods. I have Gems, and I’m willing to spend!

More specifically, I’d consider it a buy-to-play-free-to-play game. To me, “buy to play” signifies an intent at either making a profit solely through box prices and expansion packs or actual new games. Diablo 3 is something I’d consider a fully “buy to play” game now with the removal of RMT coinciding with their expansion pack.

IndigoSundown.5419:

When a developer tries to make cosmetic items fit the role of endgame progression and cash shop items, there is a fundamental conflict of interest. This is especially true in the case of armor. We’ve been told that armor looks are expensive to produce, due at least in part to needing male and female versions for human/Norns and for Sylvari, and versions for Charr/Asura. Each armor then needs 6 distinct models — and that’s assuming that a resize for Norn is an easy change.

ANet’s game design and business model both ask a lot of cosmetic items like armor and weapons. Too much, if you ask me.

Amen there.

Exxcalibur.6203:

I don’t know what fantasy world people live in. Do people seriously expect Anet to keep the game going for free?

No one’s asking for “free” content, rather people question the means.

Zypher.7609:

Nat.4029:

Zypher.7609:

Because getting weapons/armor with gold is a bad thing? Go play any content you want, anything you will make gold, exchange for gems and get the weapon/armor you want. No longer do you need to fight that fish 200 times with the hope of it dropping Super Fin of death. Now just fight anything collect gold, buy Super Fin of death.

You must’ve liked the Auction House in Diablo 3. Buying stuff just isn’t as fun as actually finding it. Sure you can kill that fish 200 times or even more, but when you finally see that Super Fin of Death drop, man…is it a glorious day! It feels so good. As it does with Diablo 3. Actually getting an awesome legendary drop feels SO much more rewarding than hopping into the AH and buying it.

I played WoW killing a boss in one of the raid dungeons probably a good 100 times trying to get a shield that looked like a wall with spikes. It was going to rock on my dwarf warrior, it dropped one night and went to the paladin. I proceeded to quit for a while.

Droprates are crap in WoW the same reason the reward systems in GW2 are so constricted: To get some moolah. Admittedly you can ‘get away’ with not having to pay for anything in GW2 but you’re likely to have a less satisfying experience.

I suppose if I had to choose the lesser of two evils I might go with GW2’s method. Ideally, I’d like to earn my ‘rewards’ through content, not having to complete content numerous times.

Vayne.8563:

Guild Wars 1 in some ways was worse than this game, cash shop wise. There you could buy packs to unlock skills, which to me was a huge time saver. I’d almost put that was pay to win. It was very borderline.

Unlocking skills “normally” was far from impossible but yes, everything should’ve been unlocked in PvP from the start. The only pro is that at the time, it was a great way for someone new to the series to get right into the PvP if they didn’t care about the expansion packs or the PvE.

Still, I can’t in all honesty say I find that more offensive than providing cash-to-gold services.

And there was content as well, as in the historical mission pack.

Is this an issue? I don’t see why having to pay for content should be a concern.

After playing some actually free to play MMOs, I’d have to disagree that Guild Wars 2 is in the same ball park as them.

Of course not, because GW2 succeeded in already making $50 off of us, very likely more than any of us have spent on those sillier free-to-play games. It has no right to be as intrusive because it already “won”.

It’s still a price worth paying; the initial leveling experience through the one of the best looking MMOs is top notch stuff.

Vayne.8563:

The game isn’t in any trouble at all, in spite what naysayers say. If they were, you’d have seen a reduction in staff, like happened with TSW and SWToR when they weren’t doing well.

Personally I’ve never questioned the results, just the methods. They’re the same kind of “methods” that I don’t experience in any other genre sans Candy Crush clones and other F2P hits. I think that that’s the main thing I was hoping GW2 would grow out of, but I should’ve seen the warning sign when I found out you could turn cash into gold.

Maybe I’m “offended” at the “audacity” of a game being buy-to-play that ends up being free-to-play. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I was especially pleased with my GW1 purchases; the end result is I’ve spent $140 more on GW1 than I have towards its sequel.

The most I can do is to continue to vote with my wallet, maybe they’ll pull a Diablo III when they’re no longer making much money off of the ‘whales’ and revert back to more traditional means of income. If it goes full-blown D3, with an overhaul to rewards and many more mechanics, I will absolutely throw down $50 for it. Until then, I have to endure gameplay that keeps nudging me towards my wallet.

Lostyus.4250:

With the trait patch when they said it would increase experimentation, they were either blatantly lying (way to treat your customers Anet) or it shows how little they understand their game and how this trait patch would decrease experimentation.

Well they’re technically right: Max level players with the traits unlocked no longer have to deal with being charged for respecs. So, in some way, yes, experimentation is a bit more encouraged.

Prophet.6257:

Behellagh.1468:

Prophet.6257:

Buys Gems with cash and exchange them for gold.

Clarified.

Correct.

kishter.9578:

Fhaeris.9237:

mastercard
15char

if anyone denied is a mere liar.

Clearly the “best” route. You get your gold, ANet gets your support, everyone wins.

EdgarMTanaka.7291:

BlueZone.4236:

Vayne.8563:

Everyone was guesting to three or four servers. Lots of people if not everyone. Giving the impression that other servers had no population. No one really knows.

No, they weren’t. If “lots” of people don’t know basic combat, “lots” of people don’t even know about the guest function, which is in the main menu rather than in game.
If you mean every farmers know about it, and there’s lots of farmers, then yes, I’ll give you that.

Didn’t you play before megaservers where introduced or?
At the beginning of marionette on our server there where lots of players, then it got booring and some stopped doing it. While some stopped doing the event it got harder to compleate so people started to Guest to other servers, I mean whole guilds guested to other servers. People don’t know basic combat but when it comes to getting good rewards people do listen and follows the crowd and also there are even more people who do know basic combat and the guest function.

This seems like it’s more an issue with the scaling system not doing (what appeared to be) it’s intended function: Providing a satisfying experience, no matter if it’s for one or a hundred players . But with the megaservers, and with new content being consistently zerged by players, it’s likely the scaling doesn’t need as much fine-tuning. To me, this feels like one of the most prevalent reasons to go with the megaserver approach, because it directly concerns the gameplay.

Yet still, the game initially gave the heavy impression that it didn’t matter how big or small your server was or how many people happened to be around.

I’m upset with many of the game’s directions, but there’s still a good core experience in playing through most of the content for the first time that I still think it’s worth the box price.

The blanket assumption that anyone “upset” with the game wants it to fail is a poor one. I think it’s a great game with plenty of potential. I feel that much of it isn’t properly used. I don’t want to support the game through microtransactions, but I will recommend spending $50 to play it (a sale would be keen, though!)

There are inevitably going to people who use the forums as an outlet of abuse – it is the internet – and that’s not likely to change. Sadly, there are others who are too passionate and rash with their criticism, making it hard to grasp and appreciate their concern because it’s covered in insults. The funny part is, that bile-drenched complaint can hold more merit that a million threads simply high-fiving the developers for making the “best game ever” (that’s what Reddit’s for :p)

But ultimately, a lot of people who post here – as vile as they can be – are here because they DO care about the game. What worries me the most isn’t the post count of a questionable game decision, I’m more worried about the people who don’t care at all: The person who bought the game, logged in for a week, then never returned. Or the person who put in tons of effort and gameplay only to disappear suddenly.

To answer the thread’s title: Do I think GW2 can be saved? Yes. Even if I thought it was fine, I’d still want it to be perfect.

phys.7689:

Vayne.8563:

SkiTz.4590:

you do realize megaserver was implemented because of how utterly dead the maps were in the majority of the servers right?
Outside the first 3 tiers or so, majority of the servers were low pop/dead. Megaserver put in place to make it not look so bad.
They could have had mega servers anytime but why now? oh because of how dead some of the servers are getting….

Will this game be fine ? who knows about the future, I hope it will , all I know is the NOW. and right now, its not nearly as active of an MMO as it was and it has been losing players, not gaining/retaining.

Again this is theory, not fact. The fact is that people guested to busier servers because they could ANYWAY. So saying a server is dead because no one was playing on it, didn’t mean the population of that server wasn’t playing on a busier server. I used to guest all the time to different servers. You had guilds like TTS where everyone guested to a dead server at least on Australian times. So for that event that became a busy server. In fact, we’d fill up the map and sometimes have one or two overflows, even in the middle of the US night.

You can’t say what the population is, because you don’t know. The best you can do is guess.

Are less people playing this game now than at launch. Almost definitely. There’s a normal and acceptable attrition in MMOs.

The question isn’t how many people have left, because millions have stopped playing WoW. The question is how many people are still playing, how many have come back, and how many are coming on board with the frequent sales.

Those are the real questions.

I don’t think this game is bleeding players. We’ve had a number of people who left for a year and have come back.

In fact, so many people come back that on Reddit they have a scripted bot now to handle it, because we were getting multiple posts a day.

And only a tiny percentage of people post on forums.

As for the only reason the mega server being introduced is servers being dead, there was another reason. Anyone who played in the Marionette fight, will remember the dozens of threads of people complaining that they couldn’t play on their home server. Those complaints are now a thing of the past.

And I’m sure having players on less servers also saved money in the long run, because you’re not maintaining servers with small amounts of players on them.

pretty odd reasoning, people complained that they couldnt play on their server, so we obliterated their server?

Or another angle, people really didnt like being on overflows for these one monthly events, so we made them have to do it everyday!

I mean i see possible advantages, to the megaserver, if they start building new community tools/features/grouping but to be honest it was not the solution anyone was looking for.

I’m just bummed that I no longer have a choice in where I play. Half the time I want to enjoy the community with a zerg of people, the other half I want it to be a little less crowded to increase that solemn but wonderous and immersive quality to exploration.

So maybe something a little bit similar to what people have done for Diablo III?

http://diablo.somepage.com/popular/

It might be an interesting way to help with player build direction, so I can’t say I’d object. At the same time, I think the message ANet wants to send with their game is “anything’s viable! Build whatever you want!”. A tool that helps players come to conclusions on what is objectively “the best” might conflict with that.

Zaxares.5419:

ANet basically wanted to use the trait system to encourage people to do content in other parts of the game that they may not have done before.

While great, did it have to be through traits? Wouldn’t simply pointing to it be easy enough? They could do it like they did in GW1 with the Zaishen quests. It also makes the content worthwhile not just for new characters but maxed as well; an 80 with all the traits is less likely to discover content than if he needed it for his build.

scerevisiae.1972:

the GW1 system of rewarding a significant portion of skills (or in this game, traits) via quest lines worked really well there, why is the GW2 so retrograde?

Because the game wasn’t built with it in mind. Exploring and progressing through the game world in any manner you chose was it’s biggest draw, and the new means of trait acquisition betrays this concept.

It all makes way more sense as a means of managing player activity or as a way to give more of a reason for such a high level cap, but an “improved” means of progression this is not.

I’m more curious about how the reception would be if it was like this in the beginning, but then got changed to where you could just earn the traits on your own, not following any specific tasks – just like it used to be in reality.

Nayaru.4716:

Hmm maybe it’s just people who haven’t played GW1 who don’t like this.

I played GW1 and loved GW1. I don’t like the new trait acquisition process. Why? Well for starters, GW1 is not GW2, and traits aren’t equivalent to elites or skills. The “process” in GW1 wasn’t all that complicated: “That guy has something you want, kill him for it.”

But mainly, I don’t like this change because it kills a large amount of freedom one had in PvE. I used to be able to progress my character through any manner I chose. Now I have to follow a handful of guidelines, and a lot of the content now feels “required”. Of course I don’t consider that an improvement: being required to complete certain content is way less horizontal than choosing any content.

Devata.6589:

Smith.1826:

At this point, “roles” are something I can do without. Not to mention, the game was designed without having any in mind: Suddenly making the gameplay require certain roles in GW2 would be as big a shift as WoW going trinity-less.

What I really want is the insane amount of options my GW1 warrior had compared to my GW2 one.

That’s wrong. The game was designed with roles in mind. I also did not know that to later. When they said the trinity would go I figured there would be more roles based on the classes. So basically having the opposite of what we have now. Not only have a tank and a healer but also other roles then the rest all being DPS (as in the holy trinity). It turned out to be all DPS but they wanted to have 3 different roles. If I remember correctly it was Damage (DPS), Control, and Support. But in reality that did not really work out as we all know. So they should rethink that. Anyway it’s untrue they had no roles in mind.

At the least, that’s what PvE ended up being. And in that respect, I’m not too disappointed. There is a large amount of freedom and relief in just only needing to find four other people for a dungeon, regardless of their class and build, and moving away from that in a game where the balance is already suspect is dangerous.

A higher skill ceiling and more viable options (i.e. Fix the condition cap) are the two main areas I want them to work on for PvE.

At this point, “roles” are something I can do without. Not to mention, the game was designed without having any in mind: Suddenly making the gameplay require certain roles in GW2 would be as big a shift as WoW going trinity-less.

What I really want is the insane amount of options my GW1 warrior had compared to my GW2 one.

One of the most entertaining and most informative threads I’ve seen on here in years. I agree with pretty much everything the OP has said.

I’m totally down with this. As is, it’s incredibly slow.

As others have hit upon, for the most part it’s just what happens with MMOs, or nearly any game ever. You want to talk about terrible? The WoW general forum was the worst place in the world during BC – and it was also when the game peaked. So no conclusions drawn, really.

But there are two big things to bear in mind, especially concerning GW2:

-The hype train for GW2 was enormous. Like, SERIOUSLY gigantically enormous. I’ve never seen so much hype for an MMO, and it’s likely I may never again.

-Sans setting and skill names, there’s very little resembling GW1 in GW2. While not an immediately bad thing – see Alien and Aliens – it can be a terribly bad thing if you were hoping for more GW1, moreso since there still aren’t many games like it.

My fingers are still crossed for the day when my ladies can wear the male Arah heavy armor.