GW/GW2 and hero's/hench
quickmonty
The "good olde days" ...... hanging around in town for hours spamming "GLF ..........."
Sounds like it will be a lot of fun in GW2 also.
Sounds like it will be a lot of fun in GW2 also.
The Great Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinraith
The problem is that, without the party dynamic to make it different, they have to compete (in my mind anyway) with Morrowind, Oblivion, Diablo etc. GW is a great game because it's different from any other action RPG I've played. The more they make it like other games I adore, the more flawed it looks, simply because it's trying to do what they do only not as well. To my mind, what makes GW unique is:
1. Instancing across the entire game 2. Hero/Henchmen dynamic 3. The Skill system 4. A low level cap with the bulk of the game set beyond max level Lose any of those things and it becomes more like the other games in the genre, and consequently easier to dismiss in favor of something else. They're removing at least the first two, as well as four, and altering three in a way that doesn't sound at all good to me. That spells "run of the mill MMORPG" to me, a genre I don't play and a mediocre one at that. |
Master Knightfall
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Al
I'd also rather not have an emphasis on H/H. I'd get rid of heroes entirely, and just have henchmen. That way, if towns are empty, or people can't find a party for a specific quest, they can use henchmen, but if people are able and willing, they should be looking towards using humans first. It's ridiculous how elitist the people here are. Yes, there's a lot of bad PUGs, but there's a lot of good ones, too.
|
So, nope, enforced grouping of any type would be bad for this type game. Soloing should always be top priority and let the multiplayers find each other.
Mordakai
1. Instancing: Hurts GW b/c the world will always be the same everytime you enter an instance. One of my favorite things about WoW is I never know who I'll see running around when I log on.
2. Heroes / Henchies: Honestly, it's all about how it's implemented. If we can have a companion that will rez and heal us, and the game is "soloable" then I don't really see a technical difference between playing the game with one AI companion or 7 AI hero/henchmen.
3. The Skill system. Can someone explain how the skills are changing for sure? Because we really don't know anything yet.
4. No / High Level cap: Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all anymore. It makes no difference if you're playing the game and leveling up, or playing the game and NOT leveling. The gameplay is essentially the same: Find mobs and defeat them.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: I'd much prefer a true higher- leveling system, than the pseudo-leveling system Anet tacked on to Guild Wars with skills tied to Title Tracks. One of the worst ideas ever, and I hope that there will be no skills tied to Titles in GW2. If character skills are going to be better the more you grind, then take away the grind, and just have skills be advanced by playing; ie, LEVELING.
2. Heroes / Henchies: Honestly, it's all about how it's implemented. If we can have a companion that will rez and heal us, and the game is "soloable" then I don't really see a technical difference between playing the game with one AI companion or 7 AI hero/henchmen.
3. The Skill system. Can someone explain how the skills are changing for sure? Because we really don't know anything yet.
4. No / High Level cap: Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all anymore. It makes no difference if you're playing the game and leveling up, or playing the game and NOT leveling. The gameplay is essentially the same: Find mobs and defeat them.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: I'd much prefer a true higher- leveling system, than the pseudo-leveling system Anet tacked on to Guild Wars with skills tied to Title Tracks. One of the worst ideas ever, and I hope that there will be no skills tied to Titles in GW2. If character skills are going to be better the more you grind, then take away the grind, and just have skills be advanced by playing; ie, LEVELING.
lyra_song
the problem is evident from this thread alone of the two player types here.
The solo-ers and the multi-players.
One demanding more attention than the other.
The game is supposed to appeal to both. But because of this, either side can't fully enjoy their playing style.
Leaning one way will isolate the other.
*shrug*
PERSONALLY....I dislike making the game solo-able.
It makes it "stupid". Meaning you can't implement level design and quest designs that require multiple players. You can't have tactics that require smart, on the fly type decision making from multiple fronts.
This forces linearity and dumbs down mission designs.
The solo-ers and the multi-players.
One demanding more attention than the other.
The game is supposed to appeal to both. But because of this, either side can't fully enjoy their playing style.
Leaning one way will isolate the other.
*shrug*
PERSONALLY....I dislike making the game solo-able.
It makes it "stupid". Meaning you can't implement level design and quest designs that require multiple players. You can't have tactics that require smart, on the fly type decision making from multiple fronts.
This forces linearity and dumbs down mission designs.
tmr819
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyra_song
the problem is evident from this thread alone of the two player types here.
The solo-ers and the multi-players. |
Quote:
The game is supposed to appeal to both. But because of this, either side can't fully enjoy their playing style. |
Quote:
PERSONALLY....I dislike making the game solo-able. It makes it "stupid". Meaning you can't implement level design and quest designs that require multiple players. You can't have tactics that require smart, on the fly type decision making from multiple fronts. This forces linearity and dumbs down mission designs. |
There may be no middle ground, as you suggest, and perhaps the answer is just the development of entirely separate games. Even so, I'd say GW1 came closer than any MMO I've come across to pleasing most types of players.
Personally, I find GW1 challenging enough even though it is "dumbed down" as you say, compared to instances specifically designed for real players all performing independently. For that kind of experience, however, there are scads of other MMOs to choose from. For the solo/small group-oriented players, we just have ... Guild Wars and Guild Wars.
One compromise might be to offer Elite Dungeons in GW2 that can only be completed by groups of real players in much the same way you have FoW and the Underworld now. Or perhaps a whole region of GW2 that was player group-only. Personally, I'd rather not have that kind of thing, for obvious reasons, but I wouldn't object to it either.
Vinraith
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Al
Those 4 things are also probably the four things keeping this game from being the WoW killer, and also the things that make the game have no replay value
|
Master Knightfall
Quote:
2. Heroes / Henchies: Honestly, it's all about how it's implemented. If we can have a companion that will rez and heal us, and the game is "soloable" then I don't really see a technical difference between playing the game with one AI companion or 7 AI hero/henchmen. |
Quote:
I'd much prefer a true higher- leveling system, than the pseudo-leveling system Anet tacked on to Guild Wars with skills tied to Title Tracks. One of the worst ideas ever, |
Quote:
PERSONALLY....I dislike making the game solo-able. It makes it "stupid". Meaning you can't implement level design and quest designs that require multiple players. You can't have tactics that require smart, on the fly type decision making from multiple fronts. This forces linearity and dumbs down mission designs. |
Mordakai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinraith
No, those four things are what's keeping it from being a low grade run-of-the-mill MMOG. You can't compete with WoW by becoming a WoW clone. Those 4 things are the reason I play Guild Wars, they're the reason I won't bother with GW2, and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone.
|
The level cap in particular has been a huge roadblock that has kept GW from being as successful as it could be: for better or worse, people like to see their character keep advancing. Even the current GW has implemented pseudo-leveling with Title grind, see my above post for details.
I've been playing WoW solo for 2 weeks now... no problem with Persistant areas. In fact, getting random help from people, even a spell boost, has been quite nice. Yes, their are jerks who play WoW, but you can ignore them, and the benefits of peristant areas outweigh the cons IMO.
Honestly, by GW2 keeping the PvP part separate from PvE will probably help the most (most annoying thing about WoW: random people challenging you to a duel!).
Bryant Again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinraith
The problem is that, without the party dynamic to make it different, they have to compete (in my mind anyway) with Morrowind, Oblivion, Diablo etc. GW is a great game because it's different from any other action RPG I've played. The more they make it like other games I adore, the more flawed it looks, simply because it's trying to do what they do only not as well. To my mind, what makes GW unique is:
1. Instancing across the entire game 2. Hero/Henchmen dynamic 3. The Skill system 4. A low level cap with the bulk of the game set beyond max level Lose any of those things and it becomes more like the other games in the genre, and consequently easier to dismiss in favor of something else. They're removing at least the first two, as well as four, and altering three in a way that doesn't sound at all good to me. That spells "run of the mill MMORPG" to me, a genre I don't play and a mediocre one at that. |
I don't see too well how the hero/hench system is revolutionary or unique. We've had singleplayer party based games that've been doing that for awhile.
The skill system is pretty cool, but also a bit limiting. You can only do so much with this 8-skills, and while that was the point there wasn't really much different to do: Run up to enemy, hit skill, use spell, repeat. That's why I'm really looking forward to GW2's skill system. If they can really pull it off, it could make that one skill feel like four different skills, depending on how you use them.
Can't really comment too much on the level cap, since I'm a bit more biased in that section more than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Knightfall
Sorry, disagree with you again. I like the pseudo leveling system and greatly enjoy the skill grinding to obtain more advantageous skills for pve.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordakai
most annoying thing about WoW: random people challenging you to a duel!
|
Master Knightfall
Quote:
The thing is is that there's really no difference. In GW1 with the title ranks, you are essentially leveling up your character. It just doesn't show the way we're used to. |
Aera Lure
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkii
But...the availability of H/H makes people NOT group, and in turn makes Guild Wars PvE basically a single player game with an online marketplace. That model does work to a good extent. After all, making a one-time payment for Nightfall and playing the campaign with H/H wasn't so much different than playing, say, Neverwinter Nights 2.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkii
Solo play isn't necessarily H/H. In an "open" world, you can easily make solo quests, solo missions. I would prefer to see all 'hard' content only possible through grouping with other players.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarkii
I'll buy GW2 regardless of whether its excellent or terrible, so that isn't the question.
|
Master Knightfall
Quote:
I would prefer to see all 'hard' content only possible through grouping with other players. |
Sirius-NZ
It'd work well enough to make the rewards bigger (probably not just linearly either) if you had more people in the group. Since that's the way GW2 seems to be looking at it.
Truth be told, the heroes + henchmen system from GW1 is an interesting novelty, but I wouldn't be too sad if they do end up dropping it. I prefer to be able to focus on my own character anyway, rather than having to play a big strategy game here. From the sound of it, where GW1 is the RTS of RPGs, GW2 will be the fighting game (a la Street Fighter, or Soul Calibur) - and I don't mind that at all. Just as long as it has enough in it to prevent eventual boredom setting in (world PvP is a great start).
Truth be told, the heroes + henchmen system from GW1 is an interesting novelty, but I wouldn't be too sad if they do end up dropping it. I prefer to be able to focus on my own character anyway, rather than having to play a big strategy game here. From the sound of it, where GW1 is the RTS of RPGs, GW2 will be the fighting game (a la Street Fighter, or Soul Calibur) - and I don't mind that at all. Just as long as it has enough in it to prevent eventual boredom setting in (world PvP is a great start).
Master Knightfall
No absolutely not world PVP. That is what ruined Ultimate Online was it's world pvp (notice how they got rid of it). PVP is something that should always be by choice and on choice servers or restricted areas. Never world pvp though where people have no choice if they want to participate. Shadowbane tried the world PVP mode and look what happened to it. It has less than 15,000 participants and is also free to play online now.
aspectacle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Knightfall
No absolutely not world PVP. That is what ruined Ultimate Online was it's world pvp (notice how they got rid of it). PVP is something that should always be by choice and on choice servers or restricted areas. Never world pvp though where people have no choice if they want to participate. Shadowbane tried the world PVP mode and look what happened to it. It has less than 15,000 participants and is also free to play online now.
|