When GW dies...

I mean, when GW dies in it's current form, and they upgrade graphics, story, and game mechanics, I would like to see some changes.


I would like to see it as the same GW universe in the future. Not all sci fi, just later in time, say a hundred years. This great epic story, on every continent that's simultaneous, yet isn't....it's getting old.

I would love to see a linear and ongoing story, guilds(non player made) that actually fight eachother for territory(to include farming rights), and the boundaries change over time. Somewhat like what the UW and nations that have favor.

Beats seeing 5000 guilds that all think they're the coolest. Within each Guild you could have your seperate clans, treat a Guild like what it actually is, a business-like sort of organization. I'll admit that's all somantics though...and beside the point.

Anyways, with fluxuating boundaries, you could make it so that the people with favor(ownership) get a drop rate increase, but does not disallow other guilds from entering and farming(PVP and PVE on the same maps, with continually spawning mobs)

When you PVP in these zones and win, you get a percentage of these slain foes gold, and their last X amount of drops.

I started this with a whole different idea, and it sort of flowed out.

My original idea is: That in the future, characters from this GW(and relative chapters) do not get to progress to the next game, but leave relics behind that get passed down a generation or two. Only people that own both GW and GW2 can do this. Limit it to a very small amount of items. Of course with game mechanics likely changing, the old weapons may not fit, but have unique substitues that pass on.

Anyways, it's a way off likely, but it will eventually happen, It's never too early to brainstorm on something like that.

It might be a good thing to get rolling now, while alot of the more original players can still enjoy this version, so that the later version retains some of the dignity and feel that GW had when pioneered.
In other words, don't let it rot before you begin it's replacement, there's already a stagnant air about...

So My Character 2 would be a Son/Grand son of my original Character(which is dead, or the nooby area trainer)? And they both live in the same area, which gets revamped with content every expantion?

Wierd, but kinda cool in a way. Verry old school RolePlay, I like it.
Sadly GW(and likely GW2 with it) is about PvP and your original PvP character should be able to use skills from both expantions;
A PvE should too, I've grown too fond of my N/Rt that has Tyria looks.
And Criticaliser got 2ce as powerfull with the NF assassin and ranger skills.

If I could not improve my original characters, I think I would not buy expantions, only a specific one I really like for the story.(When are we getting a Australian or a Caribean expantion?)

Other than it has a strong old school RolePlay vibe to it, kinda cool, Did the original WhiteWolf RPG give you this idea?(Vampire pen and paper RPG)

Any way feels kinda wierd to be talking about GW2 when they said they would go for 10 expantions, that is still a pretty long way away

pessimistic doomsayers

People said UO going to die, did that happen?
People said EQ going to die, did that happen?
People said WoW going to die, did that happen?
Aeon_Xin said GW going to die, will that happen?

hes not the first and he won't be the last...

I just wish they'd /ragequit to WoW and let us play in piece

When the Sun goes nova...

All things shall pass, and nothing lasts forever.

There's no sense rushing through things.

There is a lot of future left in Guild Wars if the developers want to create it.

The OP's ideas are interesting,if there ever was another game built in the Guild Wars universe I'd like to see a seamless world with a global story line, perhaps less linear but the mission component is still worth retaining IMO. I'd place the "new" World about 10 years after Nightfall/last chapter.

This ain't gonna happen for a while. Let's just say that this game will probably go for more than 3-5 years after their 4th chapter (assuming they don't make a 5th), due to the rapid development of technology.

Thanks for the support everyone(aside from those below).

My point is that I'd like to see alot of forethought go into the overhaul that will be labeled GW2 for now. To include not suffering through nerfs and bugs, that's what Beta's are for. I think they're learning each expansion, but I'd like to see all the effort culminate into something grand(and I'm a doomsayer for all this?). GW is obviously proud of it's PvE, and has included PvP as a croud puller. I would just like to see PvP become central to to the game in given(but many) areas of conflict. More reward for PvP than the Uw and faction points, that are good for next to nothing..., and a little renoun, for people that follow that sort of thing.

A point on the new expansions. They're improving each expansion so much as to leave players that don't get them at a loss, think of where it will be in ten, fifteen expansions? (sees original Gw terain covered in cob-webs and dust, there's an idea)

Lonesamurai, why don't you /ragequit the forums and stay logged into the game if you're such a die hard fan? Go "play in piece", and leave the suggestion forums alone.

Lightblade, you're still asking for a nerf on Spoil Victor don't you dare come in here and call me a doomsayer for knowing GW won't last forever.
In addition to the fact that GW doesn't really equate with any of your given examples.
I stand by the statment that GW will die, eventually, and that I stated it's likely a ways off.
I didn't state GW would be dead tomorrow, next year, or within this decade.

The point I made is that I don't think it's too early to start tossing ideas for overhauls.

I don't see "nerfing Spoil Victor" have anything to do with "saying GW is not dying". Unrelated topics. Why can't I say both?

You're pretty obtuse.

You're also contradicting yourself.

You apparently still have problems with 8-9 month old skills(Goal of GW skills is to adapt, if not overcome), yet you imply that Gw, as is, is perfect and won't ever die.

...
...
...

I did not say that...it's like...

I'm not perfect, no one is perfect, neither is GW.
I'm going to die, everyone is going to die, GW going to die.
I'm not dying, no one here is dying, neither is GW.

Verb tense make all the difference.

GW is not dyING. You're suggestion is 50 years too early.

-------------

Spoil Victor really is a 8-9 month old skill. But it's only recently (3?4? months) that it became this powerful. GW is about adapt, yes. But it's ALSO about using a combination of a full bar of 8 skills to win, not relying on only 4 skills. (Yes, Spoil Victor can win with only 4 skills on bar)

Diminishing technology is not a reason for a game to fail. For example, Runescape have poor technology, but it's going strong and have people paying 5$ a month to play it. Maplestory have poor technology, yet it's still going. The FIRST mmorpg, Ultima Online have nearly 10 years of history now, yet it's still releasing expansions (planned release this year). It's graphic engine is the equivilent of Diablo 1, yet it's still going.

See my previous reply.

Ultima Online is DEFINITELY kicking and yes they're still developing upon it. I also feel they're learning with each expansion and I have often wondered how many expansions will get thrown down the line before another plan is thought of. And we'll always have testing because each expansion grants a new set of skills as well as two new characters. There's only so many you can create, though.

Reply with this quote:

There is always possibilities.

I think my head is going to explode.

But as far as imagination -- of course.

Do some of you people just read the topic and reply to that?

I'm not saying that GW is dead and the apocalypse is coming.

Work on your reading comprehension, and atleast read the original post, I'll even quote my first sentence,"I mean, when GW dies in it's current form, and they upgrade graphics, story, and game mechanics, I would like to see some changes."

But wait, no.
It is rocket science.

Yes UO is kicking, but it's hardly what I would call in it's original form.

Yes people still play diablo 1, but people still play atari and even Pong too.

Anet has stated(I'm told and have read) that they will no longer make big revisions of existing games. If they're going to add new large concepts to the playability of GW, it's going to have to be a new game, wether or not it's relevant/connected to existing games/chapters, I would like to see the ideas I mentioned(with the exception of artifacts, that a "If it's done this way" idea)

The PvE factor gets stale. Otherwise all of our runners would not have insane amounts of money.(atleast, not as much)
I think a dynamic PvE, that evolves, and involves PvP would help matters greatly.

Yes, people do that. In fact, most people do that. That's why my tech writing prof always says: "Make the subject line precise and to the point". There are like 20 threads on the first page, and threads with title like these really catches people's eyes.

If you blame people for not reading your entire post, I can blame you for writing a misleading title.

"Don't judge a book by it's cover" is a more popular saying.

I'm also sure the basics of debate is to have all your facts in order, and respond to what is said. Not guess based on what people say and respond to your own imagination of what is actually said.

When's the last time you bought a book(or magazine, or the frontline on newspaper) not because of it's cover?

Web forum is different from debating in a room, where you can have loud speakers to force information down someone's ear.

The audience in here is not going to read your entire post, especially those that have more than 10 lines.

Ask your beloved Prof, then, wether or not you should base an argument solely on an articles topic.

"An Internet forum is a facility on the World Wide Web for holding discussions and posting user generated conten"

Not the use of the word "discussion".

"When's the last time you bought a book(or magazine, or the frontline on newspaper) not because of it's cover?"
Always, since I was a child atleast.
If I buy a book it's for the content, not for the snappy name.
Reviews, author's wrting history.

Public debate is verbal, it's speech. Internet forum is written. It's different. Another way to say it is...it's like email...like some of the junk mails that occationally get pass the filter and catches your attention with an interesting title. When you open it, it's full of ****.