Why do people become so against a certain idea being added to the game, simply because a different MMO has it?
Really, if that were the case, Guild Wars wouldn't exist.
Playable Races and Mounts seem to be the largest attention attractors.
Races and Mounts would be awesome, no one ever said they have to be WoW's mounts, or anything close to that.
So tell me, why do people do this?
I'd just like to know one thing.
Aegeroth
Skuld
Maybe they like this game, they don't like other MMORPGs, and don't want this game to turn into something they dislike? 
Cebe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aegeroth
So tell me, why do people do this?
|
I, for one, don't like the idea of mounts etc... and when this was announced to be implemented in NF I was a little apprehensive. The thing is, when people see how well it is actually implemented it's great! Like with the "NF Mounts"...when it turned out to be wurms you could only use in certain areas I was actually quite happy with that...it wasn't the radical change I was dreading.
Personally, I just don't like the idea of change...but if they decide to add new features, I'm fairly sure that my fears will be unjustified and it will be implemented in such a way that is fitting, and sensible, for the game.
k3mikal
i dont like change, and especially if its to something a major MMO (wow) is famous for. makes me feel gw isnt on the same level as wow, which isnt true.
arcanemacabre
I wonder that a lot myself. There is a lot of things that get dissed and dismissed simply because they are highlighted in WoW or any other game that directly competes or is generally disliked.
I submit to everyone: Guild Wars has one main theme - Classic Fantasy. There are many things that share this theme, and comparisons can be drawn between such things as: Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings, and yes, even Warcraft.
Is it a bad thing to directly steal ideas from other games/movies/etc? Sure it is. We prefer at least a little creativity to set our favorite game apart from the rest. Is it a bad thing to embrace ideas and elements that work from other games/movies/etc? No way. Nothing can be truly unique, and must seek inspiration from what came before it.
An auction house works really well in a video game. Know why? Because it works really well IRL, in the form of eBay. WoW's auction house was in no way an original concept, thought up by the evil wizzards of Blizzard. Mounts? Guess what: people actually rode horses, elephants, rhinos, etc in actual warfare - not an original concept. Races? If anyone thinks this is an original WoW thing, you've never heard of LoTR and D&D.
I submit to everyone: Guild Wars has one main theme - Classic Fantasy. There are many things that share this theme, and comparisons can be drawn between such things as: Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings, and yes, even Warcraft.
Is it a bad thing to directly steal ideas from other games/movies/etc? Sure it is. We prefer at least a little creativity to set our favorite game apart from the rest. Is it a bad thing to embrace ideas and elements that work from other games/movies/etc? No way. Nothing can be truly unique, and must seek inspiration from what came before it.
An auction house works really well in a video game. Know why? Because it works really well IRL, in the form of eBay. WoW's auction house was in no way an original concept, thought up by the evil wizzards of Blizzard. Mounts? Guess what: people actually rode horses, elephants, rhinos, etc in actual warfare - not an original concept. Races? If anyone thinks this is an original WoW thing, you've never heard of LoTR and D&D.
Cacheelma
Because I play GW because it has/doesn't have something that those "other MMORPGs" have/don't have?
Why would you want mounts? So that you can use conjure phantasm while you're riding something? I don't think mobility is an issue in GW since map travelling takes...what... 2 sec?
Why do you want playable races? Just for the sake of having it?
Playable races with no difference in term of stats = Nothing more than cosmetic. What's the point?
Playable races with differences in stats = balance issues (which other mmorpgs more or less have). And that's the last thing I want for my game, especially when PvP is more or less important part of it.
Why would you want mounts? So that you can use conjure phantasm while you're riding something? I don't think mobility is an issue in GW since map travelling takes...what... 2 sec?
Why do you want playable races? Just for the sake of having it?
Playable races with no difference in term of stats = Nothing more than cosmetic. What's the point?
Playable races with differences in stats = balance issues (which other mmorpgs more or less have). And that's the last thing I want for my game, especially when PvP is more or less important part of it.
The Ernada
It really does seem that people just cant handle change doesnt it? Also it's narrowmindedness and ignorance. If you mention mounts, then there are always idiots who scream "OMG that's ripped off from WoW!!" as though Wow is the only game with mounts.
That being said, I don't really see a need for mounts in GW, so it's a very very very low priority. But I wouldnt be opposed to them being in the game.
That being said, I don't really see a need for mounts in GW, so it's a very very very low priority. But I wouldnt be opposed to them being in the game.
Kuldebar Valiturus
Opposing an idea based on its merits is one thing, opposing an idea because zomg this isn't <insert a game title released during the last 20 years> is dumb and ignorant and cootie-ridden.
Example:
Person A suggests: I think Guild Wars needs player mount!
Person B response: Zomg, no! Dark Ages of Camelot has player mountzrrs!
Person C response: Player Mounts are unnecessary because we have map travel and explorable areas are fairly compact.
"Person C" is a winner!
"Person B" has cooties.
"Person A" just has an idea.
Example:
Person A suggests: I think Guild Wars needs player mount!
Person B response: Zomg, no! Dark Ages of Camelot has player mountzrrs!
Person C response: Player Mounts are unnecessary because we have map travel and explorable areas are fairly compact.
"Person C" is a winner!
"Person B" has cooties.
"Person A" just has an idea.
arcanemacabre
As far as the merit of mounts goes, having a mount in a battle was not for getting from point A to point B quicker, it had a significant tactical and power advantage. So you ask, why mounts? I say, why weapons?
Races? No, please, I don't want more choices! That's all it adds, choices. You say there will be balance issues, I say how the game is designed creates balance issues. It's obvious since there is continuous balance changes for simplistic skills. An added depth of say 1-2 species attributes is not going to entirely throw everything off anymore than adding two new classes. Moot point.
Look beyond your current GW-dyed lenses and realize there are other possibilities and options that could be added to create a greater depth in gameplay.
Otherwise, agreed with Kuldebar, in that it's not the reasoned arguments that's in question, it's the instant "This ain't WoW"-style dismissals that are tiring.
Races? No, please, I don't want more choices! That's all it adds, choices. You say there will be balance issues, I say how the game is designed creates balance issues. It's obvious since there is continuous balance changes for simplistic skills. An added depth of say 1-2 species attributes is not going to entirely throw everything off anymore than adding two new classes. Moot point.
Look beyond your current GW-dyed lenses and realize there are other possibilities and options that could be added to create a greater depth in gameplay.
Otherwise, agreed with Kuldebar, in that it's not the reasoned arguments that's in question, it's the instant "This ain't WoW"-style dismissals that are tiring.
Cacheelma
Well, you have to understand something; your "Person C" can only take so many "Person As" in his entire life. If these "Person As" are reasonable enough and USE search function of the forums, they would know that certain ideas have been suggested and countered for so many times already, and there's no need to bring it up over and over and over and over again.
If anything, I don't think any forum readers like to read about the same topic (and more or less same set of replies) over and over.
If anything, I don't think any forum readers like to read about the same topic (and more or less same set of replies) over and over.
Redfeather1975
For people who don't want different races...
What if we could have different body types and stances for our characters?
Would that be so bad. To have a badass elementalist using the same creepy stance a necro uses. Or have a slim, althletic warrior?
I think it would be cool. It would give our characters more personality. And it's really not that far from having different races just for a cosmetic effect.
Game model formats such as .nif are commonly used for making 1 type of model that can fit many different bone structures. So if GW2 has different races, they don't need to make 1 model for each armour piece for each race. They don't need to do all that work at all!
What if we could have different body types and stances for our characters?
Would that be so bad. To have a badass elementalist using the same creepy stance a necro uses. Or have a slim, althletic warrior?
I think it would be cool. It would give our characters more personality. And it's really not that far from having different races just for a cosmetic effect.
Game model formats such as .nif are commonly used for making 1 type of model that can fit many different bone structures. So if GW2 has different races, they don't need to make 1 model for each armour piece for each race. They don't need to do all that work at all!
Kuldebar Valiturus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cacheelma
Well, you have to understand something; your "Person C" can only take so many "Person As" in his entire life. If these "Person As" are reasonable enough and USE search function of the forums, they would know that certain ideas have been suggested and countered for so many times already, and there's no need to bring it up over and over and over and over again.
If anything, I don't think any forum readers like to read about the same topic (and more or less same set of replies) over and over. |
I put in a suggestion the other day and had my thread closed.
I had checked before posting my suggestion and found a related post six months old. And my suggestion differed from the old one in many ways except for the general subject.I felt ill used by the mod that closed my thread based on a six month old suggestion thread that wasn't all that great. Why would I want to dredge up an old thread and tack my suggestion on it? Talk about not getting your point across.
If I start my own topic, I get to name it and write the first post setting the tone for the whole thread....
Meh, it's almost 5 AM...and I am on a roll... o.O
Redfeather1975
Even if this thread does get closed and I get banned for saying this...
The search engine on this site is not so hot, especially the advanced search!
It has been that way for a long time now.
The search engine on this site is not so hot, especially the advanced search!
It has been that way for a long time now.
Asplode
Well I guess I'll throw my two cents here...
Races: Another thing for ANet to fail at balancing.
Mounts: In PvE, I could care less. If it makes people have more fun, then by all means. In PvP, another thing for ANet to fail at balancing.
I say before we add new stuff like races, mounts, other miscellaneous features, and especially before we add new classes and skills, we should first fix the status quo.
Races: Another thing for ANet to fail at balancing.
Mounts: In PvE, I could care less. If it makes people have more fun, then by all means. In PvP, another thing for ANet to fail at balancing.
I say before we add new stuff like races, mounts, other miscellaneous features, and especially before we add new classes and skills, we should first fix the status quo.
ValaOfTheFens
Mounts would be useless for anything other than getting cartographer. Some places I just want to avoid running around in but I gotta to get cartographer ranks. Playable races should have been implemented from the start. I'd be ok with adding them now if there aren't any bonuses or special attributes attached to them.
Playable races should have been implemented from the start. I'd be ok with adding them now if there aren't any bonuses or special attributes attached to them.
Alleji
Because mounts wouldn't fit with the concept of this game.
Meat Axe
Mounts I don't care about. Sure, they'd be fun, but really we don't need them. We have map travel. And if they added some advantage in battle (as someone suggested) it might unbalance the game.
Races, on the other hand. I see a lot of posts about how adding races will just add another thing that needs balancing. If they don't have racial abilities, then there's no other point to them. Who wants to look any different anyway? And you're right about that last bit... It's a waste of time to do something pointless like adding races just for aesthetics. I think the human toons look good enough. However, I think a lot of people don't see one very good opportunity that races could bring to the game: Different storylines. The games have excellent storylines, and yet what does everyone discuss? Skills and balance. How boring. Let's see the storylines from other perspectives. Even if just segments of it depend on the race you're playing, and then once you've finished the game you can go back and do all the other missions. That's what I'd like to see.
Races, on the other hand. I see a lot of posts about how adding races will just add another thing that needs balancing. If they don't have racial abilities, then there's no other point to them. Who wants to look any different anyway? And you're right about that last bit... It's a waste of time to do something pointless like adding races just for aesthetics. I think the human toons look good enough. However, I think a lot of people don't see one very good opportunity that races could bring to the game: Different storylines. The games have excellent storylines, and yet what does everyone discuss? Skills and balance. How boring. Let's see the storylines from other perspectives. Even if just segments of it depend on the race you're playing, and then once you've finished the game you can go back and do all the other missions. That's what I'd like to see.
Aegeroth
Thanks for the replies guys, i believe ive some some light now thats been shed.
I'm too lazy and tired to quote, so ill just say that some people said something along the lines of "because it's not necessary we shouldn't have it"?
Well, thats not 100% true, i believe we've been looking for gold sinks, and mounts are a very viable gold sink. Sure, they aren't useful because of map travel, but hey, its just another "ive got money!" thing. Hell we already have /tiger, why not go for more? Anyhow, about it being a viable gold sink, you might have to maintain your mount for it to keep a "constant speed". Hmmm?
But thats off topic. Thanks for the replies.
Edit-
I'm pretty sure my lvl 20 Necromancer (Mortal Human) managed to slay Abaddon (Crazy Powerful God) and then mounts just don't fit in? Not even a Donkey?
I'm too lazy and tired to quote, so ill just say that some people said something along the lines of "because it's not necessary we shouldn't have it"?
Well, thats not 100% true, i believe we've been looking for gold sinks, and mounts are a very viable gold sink. Sure, they aren't useful because of map travel, but hey, its just another "ive got money!" thing. Hell we already have /tiger, why not go for more? Anyhow, about it being a viable gold sink, you might have to maintain your mount for it to keep a "constant speed". Hmmm?
But thats off topic. Thanks for the replies.
Edit-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alleji
Because mounts wouldn't fit with the concept of this game.
|
Fentarez
About races I don't got much to say, I just think that if you do put in new races, you got to almost make a new GW, this whole game is build on humans, that's all you ever play.
It would just be weird and chaotic to put a whole new race imo.
And mounts, they do have the cool-factor, but mounts in a game where in small area's every 10 meters a group of enemies is, is not very logic, again imo.
It would just be weird and chaotic to put a whole new race imo.
And mounts, they do have the cool-factor, but mounts in a game where in small area's every 10 meters a group of enemies is, is not very logic, again imo.
lyra_song
Really the problem is people make these suggestions nonchalantly.
If you want to implement races into the game, you need to explain how you plan to balance it out with all the primary classes and secondary classes.
If you want to implement mounts, you need to explain how and why. What drawbacks, what advantages, what new gameplay changes you expect.
Its not out of the question, its just people cant stick pre-existing notions and expect it to fit.
They have to be modified and specialized and fine tuned to the guild wars environment.
If you want to implement races into the game, you need to explain how you plan to balance it out with all the primary classes and secondary classes.
If you want to implement mounts, you need to explain how and why. What drawbacks, what advantages, what new gameplay changes you expect.
Its not out of the question, its just people cant stick pre-existing notions and expect it to fit.
They have to be modified and specialized and fine tuned to the guild wars environment.
Ares Moonlight
Oo!Oo! I know a good one
Howmany GW'ers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
50
1 to screw it in and 49 to complain how good it looked before
Howmany GW'ers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
50
1 to screw it in and 49 to complain how good it looked before
lennymon
minipets aren't necessary, 25 different charmable pets, 15k armor, rare skins... who care's about mounts?
Tide to Go
BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF NEW THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Ernada
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alleji
Because mounts wouldn't fit with the concept of this game.
|
Just exactly what concept are you talking about here? Maybe next time someone makes a statement that I dont agree with, I'll just blindly say that it doesnt fit the concept...
Bryant Again
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lennymon
minipets aren't necessary
|
OT: Mounts are unnecessary because of outposts and map travel.
Races would be cool because of choice, really. I like choices. And Charrs make bad-ass warriors.
And I was gonna say alternate starting zone for each race, but I think it would be cooler for an alternate starting zone for each profession, i.e. Warriors in a military hall and monks in a chapel.
mqstout
Because those things are wasteful and wouldn't truly add to the gameplay in a good, positive way as compared to what could be done with the same resources spent elsewhere.
Jaythen Tyradel
There are always going to be similarities between games..no matter how hard developers try to be creative and different.
By not doing something that other games have done can set your game apart or it may alienate your game.
By have similarities between games of a similar type, allow for easy transition and a familiar yet comfortable setting for a player to go from one game to another. Yet it is the differences that will bring the player back or keep them playing one game over another.
Bringing in too much from one game might bore or or cause disinterest from a player since it has "been done before". More likely they will bring up an example of what game did it better or how this game should do the same thing bur better.
Sometimes it isn't a resistance to change, but a resistance to becoming like everything else.
By not doing something that other games have done can set your game apart or it may alienate your game.
By have similarities between games of a similar type, allow for easy transition and a familiar yet comfortable setting for a player to go from one game to another. Yet it is the differences that will bring the player back or keep them playing one game over another.
Bringing in too much from one game might bore or or cause disinterest from a player since it has "been done before". More likely they will bring up an example of what game did it better or how this game should do the same thing bur better.
Sometimes it isn't a resistance to change, but a resistance to becoming like everything else.
Saphrium
Much of the suggestions made from other games are purely "vanity" based, and then people try their best to validate their point of view in order to get their "vanity" suggestion approved. That is just simply what lawyers do, which I strongly disapprove. (Ideas like "more pretty armors for pve chars", "mounts that do nothing but look good so it doesn't affect game mechanic", "super leet rank emote", "mega personalized unique super aura on char")
I strongly support ideas that are original, illuminating and creative, can improve both the game system and game ideology, with a strong background, with in-depth research or well thought-through, and fair amount of space for imagination and improvisation, flexible, implementable, reasonable and most of all, purposeful and fitting in the game content. Now ideas don't have to fit all of those requirements, but fulfill one or a few is not difficult.(Ideas like "auction house system", "customizable guild hierarchy", "highlight one other char in town to render his/her higher definition armor" are just great and useful ideas.)
To say the truth: "Why don't we have mounts? That'd be awesome!", to me is like a kid talk, "Why don't you give me a star? That'd be awesome!"; the person who brought up this idea probably haven't brainstormed anything except riding the mount to move from point A to point B. Which we really do not need in GW since the teleport system.
I strongly support ideas that are original, illuminating and creative, can improve both the game system and game ideology, with a strong background, with in-depth research or well thought-through, and fair amount of space for imagination and improvisation, flexible, implementable, reasonable and most of all, purposeful and fitting in the game content. Now ideas don't have to fit all of those requirements, but fulfill one or a few is not difficult.(Ideas like "auction house system", "customizable guild hierarchy", "highlight one other char in town to render his/her higher definition armor" are just great and useful ideas.)
To say the truth: "Why don't we have mounts? That'd be awesome!", to me is like a kid talk, "Why don't you give me a star? That'd be awesome!"; the person who brought up this idea probably haven't brainstormed anything except riding the mount to move from point A to point B. Which we really do not need in GW since the teleport system.
Buster
I'm all for change, I don't want 17 chapters of the same storyline and killing the same mob types with different names. Mounts are not happening in the current scheme of things so we can squash that idea. New playable races would be cool in the future though. Either way, Anet has given us some great games. Anet has a bright future so I am almost certain whatever changes come about we won't be disappointed.
-Loki-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aegeroth
So tell me, why do people do this?
|
Isileth
I dont like ideas like this mainly because they have no purpose. New skins, emotes, chars, mounts etc etc they dont actually add to the gameplay. There are much more important things that time could be spent on instead, things that would improve the game on more than a cosmetic level.
Now if you make these things have a purpose by having some effect or attribute you risk seriousely hurting the balance.
Now if you make these things have a purpose by having some effect or attribute you risk seriousely hurting the balance.
Lord Dobo
Necrid horsemen have mounts, but it's pointless. It's just a skin on a pile of stats. A Dwarf is also a skin on a stat. If we get mounts and races in this build of GW, I only see it happening as new classes with new skill sets (lance charge anyone?) and that's it. No reason an Elf couldn't be it's own class (as in old D&D) with a secondary to give it flavor. It could be a problem trying to make a race's skill set a secondary, but maybe you just don't allow it. And mounts maybe only pop up on the field maps. Pointless chatter anyways, we get new info tommorrow/today... it's late.
ss1986v2
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Ernada
Just what concept of the game makes mounts not fit in the game?
|
with the ability to map travel, needing some form of traveling fast through a region is not needed. you need to get from ascalon to LA? just hit M, and click on LA, and poof, you are there. the purpose they serve in many other games (fast travel through an area) is not needed in this instance.
also, you have to consider the way the areas are set up. outside of pre, i cant think of too many wide open areas with no enemy mobs that would allow you to just simply ride around a mount on. if mounts were to be introduced (btw, i dont care if they are or not), any speed boost they might grant would have to be negated when in combat, or it creates a balance issue (perma speed boost ftw!). so the only way to actually enjoy the mount would be to clear a zone, and then ride around in your empty little world. the way the areas are designed (zoning and instances, mobs every 10-20 meters), the idea behind the mount begins to lose something.
if mounts were introduced as a simply aesthetic feature, then it really doesnt matter either way. its just another gold sink, like minis, high end armor, and skins. in which case, i think the opposition to the idea would probably be very small.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ares Moonlight
Howmany GW'ers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
50 1 to screw it in and 49 to complain how good it looked before |
Martian_Kyo
I am a little confused about this stance (i have been play gw too much) against fancy armors, saying they are useless.....hmmm yes... they don't add to gameplay....hmmm yes
let's just get rid of them...have one look for all armors....let's go a step further...let's have all the characters look the same as well...since hair color and looks don't add to the gameplay....
my point is...some things are uselsess but give soul to the game... I love the fact that they are leet armors, it makes me want to strive for something...
I also love the fact that those armors are useless because that means people who have those armors will have no technical advatage over me...
gw is all about balance.....which i love.... i am one of the few people who doesn't hate nerfs...i love nerfs...because the core of gw are builds...making new ones...
gw is magic the gathering....i can never stress that enough.
but i agree with some people here introducing mounts and races would have serious effect on balance...a lot of things would have to considered.
unless mounts would be exclusive to a profession...like pets are to rangers...that could work i think
hmmm...there is an idea...a profession who has a mount....whose primary attribute is tied to the mount....giving him energy/health bonus as long as mount is alive....making him incredibly weak if it dies.
let's just get rid of them...have one look for all armors....let's go a step further...let's have all the characters look the same as well...since hair color and looks don't add to the gameplay....
my point is...some things are uselsess but give soul to the game... I love the fact that they are leet armors, it makes me want to strive for something...
I also love the fact that those armors are useless because that means people who have those armors will have no technical advatage over me...
gw is all about balance.....which i love.... i am one of the few people who doesn't hate nerfs...i love nerfs...because the core of gw are builds...making new ones...
gw is magic the gathering....i can never stress that enough.
but i agree with some people here introducing mounts and races would have serious effect on balance...a lot of things would have to considered.
unless mounts would be exclusive to a profession...like pets are to rangers...that could work i think
hmmm...there is an idea...a profession who has a mount....whose primary attribute is tied to the mount....giving him energy/health bonus as long as mount is alive....making him incredibly weak if it dies.
arcanemacabre
I am very serious about mounts. Think about this: what do mounts add IRL? It certainly isn't speed. The animals people tend to mount generally go about as fast as humans. The main benefits a mount has is stamina. They have the stamina to traverse great distances without rest. They have the stamina to carry 1-2 full size humans, and equipment. They have the stamina to take a barrage of injuries before finally going down.
Now, let's talk mounts in Guild Wars.
"Traverse great distances without rest" - This particular use of mounts seems to be what everyone thinks of right away when they are mentioned. That particular use really doesn't fit in GW as it is now, no. We have map travel, the zones are small, it just doesn't fit.
"...carry 1-2 humans and equipment" - Storage, alternate strategies/tactics while fighting on a mount, and potential dual-riding partying for quests and alternate gametypes. To me, this is the big point. A mount can add a lot to how quests are designed, strategies in PvP, even more storage space while you're out adventuring.
"...take a barrage of injuries before going down." - I saw a thread in Sardelac about "super henchies" or something like that. Essentially, this idea comes from that. The mount could take up a party slot, including drops, and be it's own tank, in a sense. Large animals can take quite a beating, and while you're on one, you are effectively 2 people's worth of angry meat. Perhaps the damage you take is halved and suffered by both? Could work.
To me, in classic warfare, mounts are about as important as weapons. I mean hey, at least the Stone Summit know what's going on. Why can't we ride Yaks, too?
Now, let's talk mounts in Guild Wars.
"Traverse great distances without rest" - This particular use of mounts seems to be what everyone thinks of right away when they are mentioned. That particular use really doesn't fit in GW as it is now, no. We have map travel, the zones are small, it just doesn't fit.
"...carry 1-2 humans and equipment" - Storage, alternate strategies/tactics while fighting on a mount, and potential dual-riding partying for quests and alternate gametypes. To me, this is the big point. A mount can add a lot to how quests are designed, strategies in PvP, even more storage space while you're out adventuring.
"...take a barrage of injuries before going down." - I saw a thread in Sardelac about "super henchies" or something like that. Essentially, this idea comes from that. The mount could take up a party slot, including drops, and be it's own tank, in a sense. Large animals can take quite a beating, and while you're on one, you are effectively 2 people's worth of angry meat. Perhaps the damage you take is halved and suffered by both? Could work.
To me, in classic warfare, mounts are about as important as weapons. I mean hey, at least the Stone Summit know what's going on. Why can't we ride Yaks, too?
Kuldebar Valiturus
Now, now! I want the ability to jump while running before we get smelly horses!
arcanemacabre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kuldebar Valiturus
Now, now! I want the ability to jump while running before we get smelly horses!
|
About jumping - to avoid the annoying hopping around that other games with jumping have, simply have a half-second to one second recovery after each jump. So you can avoid something by jumping, but you're sacrificing your footing and delay in attack.
Redfeather1975
You know jumping is very much abused in other games, just like Arcane mentioned.
In Everquest 2 we have a stupid joke.
How many people does it take to raid.
24.
1 to organize the raid and 23 to jump continuously for an hour while it gets organized.
'hup' 'hup' 'hup' 'hup' <-That's the sound characters make when jumping.
The developers actually changed it so it hardly makes that sound from all the complaints of players going mad from the continuous 'hup' sounds heard ingame. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FpuKnpGU7U
In Everquest 2 we have a stupid joke.
How many people does it take to raid.
24.
1 to organize the raid and 23 to jump continuously for an hour while it gets organized.
'hup' 'hup' 'hup' 'hup' <-That's the sound characters make when jumping.
The developers actually changed it so it hardly makes that sound from all the complaints of players going mad from the continuous 'hup' sounds heard ingame. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FpuKnpGU7U
freekedoutfish
Some aspects of WoW simply wouldnt work or have no real use in GWs.
Mounts for instance. -We can instantly move from one town to the other at a click of a button, we have no need for them.
Aution House - We have a perfectly effective trading system now, but no one uses it. We dont need an AH.
Professions(i.e fishing, skinng) - We dont need it.
The use of silver and copper - Our use of gold is fine.
Increased level cap - I personally see no reason against it, but we dont need it.
Jumping - you dont need, and Ive hardly used it in WoW anyway
Ability to walk off sides of cliffs - why? its actually annoying at times in WoW
Being able to swim and enter deep water - again not something we need.
But then other aspects would be good and could be effective.
Non-human playable characters - long over due.
Droppable armor which we can wear - no reason we cant.
Ideas they already stole/copied/similar
Pets - no one complains.
Soul binding (i.e adding 10% dmg to weapons) - same kind of thing.
Factions (two waring sides) - used in factions very badly
Skill points - less complex, but free compared to change skill points
etc etc etc
Most similarities are gineric for MMO/RPG games.
When most people say "oh but WoW has this, why cant we." They are referring to huge things like Mounts, the AH or professions. All things which are pointless or wouldnt work.
People always want the flashy, exciting stuff which other games have.
There are probably countless, tiny little things which would improve GWs if copied from WoW. But no ones interested in them because they cant ride it, trade it, use it or see it.
Thats why most people winge when someone goes "WoW has it"!
Although ive made comparisions myself too at times, but never about matieral stuff.
Mounts for instance. -We can instantly move from one town to the other at a click of a button, we have no need for them.
Aution House - We have a perfectly effective trading system now, but no one uses it. We dont need an AH.
Professions(i.e fishing, skinng) - We dont need it.
The use of silver and copper - Our use of gold is fine.
Increased level cap - I personally see no reason against it, but we dont need it.
Jumping - you dont need, and Ive hardly used it in WoW anyway
Ability to walk off sides of cliffs - why? its actually annoying at times in WoW
Being able to swim and enter deep water - again not something we need.
But then other aspects would be good and could be effective.
Non-human playable characters - long over due.
Droppable armor which we can wear - no reason we cant.
Ideas they already stole/copied/similar
Pets - no one complains.
Soul binding (i.e adding 10% dmg to weapons) - same kind of thing.
Factions (two waring sides) - used in factions very badly
Skill points - less complex, but free compared to change skill points
etc etc etc
Most similarities are gineric for MMO/RPG games.
When most people say "oh but WoW has this, why cant we." They are referring to huge things like Mounts, the AH or professions. All things which are pointless or wouldnt work.
People always want the flashy, exciting stuff which other games have.
There are probably countless, tiny little things which would improve GWs if copied from WoW. But no ones interested in them because they cant ride it, trade it, use it or see it.
Thats why most people winge when someone goes "WoW has it"!
Although ive made comparisions myself too at times, but never about matieral stuff.
lucifer_uk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freekedoutfish
Some aspects of WoW simply wouldnt work or have no real use in GWs.
Mounts for instance. -We can instantly move from one town to the other at a click of a button, we have no need for them. Aution House - We have a perfectly effective trading system now, but no one uses it. We dont need an AH. Professions(i.e fishing, skinng) - We dont need it. The use of silver and copper - Our use of gold is fine. Increased level cap - I personally see no reason against it, but we dont need it. |
Theres no reason why they can't add new areas in the new chapters where you have to use a mount. But a real mount like the dolyak.
Auction house or better trading system is a MUST. No offence but i'm sick of having to minimize GW and using the lag ridden GW Guru Auctions. To the point that i'm paying commission to a guildie to post and sell them for me.
I think we need some more pve aspects such as professions and jobs. I'd love to go fishing, or what is it they say in WoW... "Wer i mine fish?"
Our monetary system is fine as it is. If all else fails you can trade materials.
I'd love to have higher levels or at least make it a lot harder to hit the cap because i know i'm strange
but i like the level treadmill aspect of a game.