What is your view of GW2 having a non-instanced explorable world?

Also keep in mind that absolutely no new press has been released regarding this turn towards WoW-lite for quite a long while. In a long, long while. . . But there have actually been recent statements by Arena Net that suggest much has changed since these early pre-press interviews etc. . . I'd wager that they are now trying to distance themselves from these early statements, having decided on more GW-Like systems, rather than WoW; that still provides players something to do in GW2 while waiting for the next expansion/campaign.

They'll likely have something to say very soon on what GW2 will Actually be like. If it's going to require a play-style similar to WoW, then they've just shot themselves in the foot. WoW is much better at being A Sugar Coated Evercrack, than GW2 could ever imagine being.

Sorry, missed that initially. How would GW2 be able to be both a large persistent world and not have servers? The server load can cause the present instanced system, which is designed for easy splitting into multiple servers without the user noticing, to its knees, so I don't see how they could have a persistent world with perhaps a million people and untold numbers of npc's and mobs without partitioning into servers.

No it has been confirmed there will be seperate servers, however just as CCP has has different servers andusing a stargate jumps you between the different servers, we'll be able to openly and freely move between the game servers

I would like to see all missions and quests remain instanced, but if you are just exploring they could be non-instanced. I don't know the feasibility of doing this but it would give you the best of both ways.

There are quite a few locations like that now in GW1. The Ascalon settlement in North Kryta, Aerie in Kinya Province, Ronjok in Kourna(its outside the SS Santuary but its still a full town thats outside), and the countless Norn steads in the Far Shiverpeaks are all I can think of offhand. But they do exist.

Map travel doesn't erase the need to actually get to a place before you can map there. Plus you have to do some sort of exploration in order to do quests. I've never heard of anyone just doing missions and only the primary quests.

They come close to what I mean, but severely lacking in facilities (usually just a merchant and 1 other commercant) and the impossibility to use them as anchor location or meeting place, makes them quite invalid as towns.

But yeah ... take those settelements as example for GW2; add persistency, the full set of facilities and the possibility to respawn/relog within (but no possibility to access Map Travel there or in surrounding explorable areas) to them; put a larger number of these at much more remoted locations with either unique crafters within or surrounded by interesting farm/mining sites ... and you get an idea of what I mean.

Making travel to and from these isolated towns difficult would incite players to devellop local "industrial" communities, which on their turn would trade materials/wares over distance through player-run transports.

Off course, the huge insta-travel-network world would remain a self-sufficient anarchistic block <as in GW1> and the imported goods would only be of estethic value, as to make the isolated towns completely and fully optional extras.

I am 100% sure that those that say they will not buy GW2, are most definitely going to buy it. When you play a game for two years, you always tend to play its sequel.

Unless GW moves genres like rts /fps etc then they won't (like warcraft series - kinda blew it for me when they went MMO).

I really cant agree with that.

If anything I would say sequels normally end up worse than the original.


Ill deffinately be more likely to take a look at it, but if its not what I want im not going to buy it. No matter how much I like the original im not going to buy a game that doesnt interest me.

People would complain about that. There are huge areas of EoTN where I just want to scream because there isn't a nearby town. Outdoor towns would certainly lessen the load in my bags but if GW2 has DP like GW1 I wouldn't be likely to go to one.

Map travel must be available as a way to leave an area. It wouldn't erase the requirement of having to walk to the outdoor town. If the town is in a high level area and you don't want to fight your way out you should be able to leave via the map.

Non-instanced worlds are dumb.

Welcome to middle earth! You can tell its middle earth because there's a dozen idiots with stupid names running around trying to kill the same random bunny rabbits you have to kill, JUST LIKE IN THE BOOKS!

It'll probably make me not buy gw2.

I say yes to this because I have farmed a total of 4 hours in my entire GW life and yet I have three sets of 15k armor and a bunch of pwznr weapons from doing Elite Missions and FoW/UW purely

/signed

Some would, as there are complainers about everything. But I'm sure there'd be others thrilled about this.

See ... not only would that impair what immersion is still confined to the remote locations, but it would also take away their essence as micro-worlds by making them still subjected to the insta-travel network - be it in one way only.
The "requirement" to fight your way out would all make part of the situation one would have committed to fight his/her way in first. But, I'm certainly not saying mob encounters shouldn't be avoidable; it would just have to be a bit more in an RP-fashion, than simply warping out.

What if a friend comes online and only has half an hour to play Gw before they have to do something else, say work for example, and you want to play with them? In Gw you can do that. Map to them and it's all good. The ability for a quick, small play-session is pretty much one of the main points of Guild Wars that they used as one of their chief selling features. And in a persistent world with no map-travel, getting to the friend could take a long time in and of itself, extending the duration of the play session. Which is further extended when you and your friend have to travel all the way to the destination instead of mapping. Not good, this violates the spirit of Guild Wars.

This immersion you keep talking about is something that only really matters to hardcore players, which is a minority in the GW community. I've played WoW and I can tell you that walking to and from a place gets old real quick. Having to press the arrow keys for 5 mins just to get to a town can be extremely demoralizing, especially if you died and you respawn far away from where you were.

I need to know how ANet is going to handle dying and the distances between outposts before I can say anymore on this.

Depends greatly. I for one become greatly immersed in Oblivion, even though I map travel. But I know plenty of others that play with mods that remove it, so it's obvious that it's a largely personal factor.

How about you simply simply don't hang out at those optional isolated towns <obviously meant for immersive not-so-casual play>, if you have casual cooperation scheduals?
And I thought I was the dramaking here ...
Anyways ... we're talking towards Guild Wars 2, which according to many allready is "a violation of the spirit of Guild Wars".
I don't get this fear some have about GW2 being more than GW1.

True, but <then again> Guild Wars 2 might attract a fair share of hardcore players.
Also, note that the reality you state has been kept into account, as the insta-travel outpost-network is pictured to comprise the bulk of the gameworld, while the isolated towns would just be enclaves here and there <most likely> on the edges of the game world.

What's wrong with the current system of instanced areas? Nothing. Why change it? Well, answer me that.

According to the info that has been unveiled so far, there still will be instancing in GW2; however, persistency would be added alongside that. So, you'll have both instanced and persistant play to your avail.
At least ... that's what I remember.

The problem with the current system of instanced areas is that it prevents you from having MMO gameplay. The system in GW2 is aimed to address that while still allowing some degree of instancing to avoid the problems of dungeon farming/loot camping/etc.

I'm technologically challenged in a serious way, so bear with me.

GW2 will have WoW type world.

Ex: If I exit Maatu Keep (yes, it won't be in GW2, I know) there may be someone out there killing stuff/farming

If so, I sort of like this direction. I remember when I'd watch my sister play Maple Story, I was jealous of the player interaction ease despite GW's overall superiority.

And how exactly is that a problem?

Really its the split between those that want GW1 type gameplay just improved and expanded, and those that want MMO gameplay.

It just depends on which market they are targetting.

WRONG! What you are forgetting is the "no monthly fee" draw that this game has. It will draw the mmorpg crowd that is paying $15 a month now in hordes and it will not be a loss to lose the few carebears that are playing GW1 now. The already made their money off of you guys. Now, it's time to make the BIG money off of the hard core gamers of WOW, EQ, DAOC, AC, AO and the rest by making a WOWlike (though not totally wowlike) game that will draw the masses.

Higher level caps even limitless levels woohoo, higher equipment standards, persistant worlds, kill stealing and PKing those kinds of things other people like. It's like I said before you already have that "other type of carebear game", there is no reason in the world for them to make GW2 exactly like GW1. Nightfall, even Factions with it's Faction grind and of course GWEN are introducing some of the newer elements to get ready for in GW2. One of them I like most is you will no longer just "rush/run the content" to get to that max gear/armor. I love how GWEN forces you to grind for those faction points to get that armor. GWEN is one of their better creations and I'm glad to see the direction Anet is taking and look forward to GW2 being the same way with just lots more of it. Hurray for grind, hurray for titles, hurray for giving us something to do besides farm for vanity items.

By alongside, if you mean instanced dungeons and missions and persistent explorable areas, then yes.

Bingo, thats what we've been toldso far

i think it is pretty obvious what they are or should be aiming for...

I think you should know that Legolas343, Killah Legolas, Laygolas, Smegmolas, L3g0l45, and Gimli Bloodaxe are VERY upset by that comment! That bunny NEEDED KILLING!

...

Hey, salogeL, that's my drop! Give it back!

That--right there--is where you lose every ounce of credibility you had from me Red Sonya. I frankly have to LoL at someone who persists in championing WoW-like gameplay calling GW players carebears.

I wrote up a big post to chew you out and show just how wrong you are. But I know better than to sink to your level. And people like you can never be "wrong".

Reported for trolling. You're not trying to make a point, you're just trying to piss other people off.

GGs

What are you on about? he wasnt even trolling....

In fact i agree with him...Face it. Anet is going to make a hell of a lot more money if they make gw2 more WoW based...the main attraction in gw for MOST (yes highlight most - i dont care if you bought it for its unique style - the majority bought it for this) is the fact it doesnt have fees.

Fees mean dedication to a game. Thus, those that don't want to have their lives committed and dominated by a fee based game will buy GW2.

Now i'm not saying that making it like WoW is a good thing, but opening up to those kinds of players really will really boost profits..and as a business...im pretty sure its obvious that that is important.

Wonder why EoTN was mostly grind based?...they wanted to test us...and it worked tbh, so many new players everywhere atm.

Edit: P.S. reporting for an unjustifiable cause can get yourself banned

And you know this how?
Let me guess: you polled yourself and found that 100% of you played GW because you're too cheap to pay $15/month to play WoW, like you'd really want to.

What is it with all these people who obviously hate playing GW and yet play it? Who's holding a gun to their heads?

"Fees mean dedication to a game"? Have you even been NEAR a fee-based game?

Thank you Turtle for understanding where I am coming from. Of course those that don't want to see GW change will always be upset with change or even suggestions of change like Melody Cross. I really don't care if I have any credibility with it or not, change is going to happen and for the better. I look forward to the changes in GW2. It's like I said those that don't want change can continue to play GW1, but, there is no use or reason to make GW2 exactly like GW1. It should improve and ADD things that OTHERS want, not just cater to carebears or even just hardcore. The best game will cater to both and provide a world of fun for both and from what I've read that is their direction and I'm happy about it.

While for the most part I can't say I agree with the people wanting GW to morph into WoW with no fees, I *do* agree here. No monthly fees is a VERY large part of what the majority have as a break point in GW. Even on fan sites such as this one past polls/topics about a monthly fee for GW pretty much meant most wouldn't play. Nor does that mean you dislike the game - it is, by far, the game I have invested the most time in and is amongst the top 5 of my favorites (I've been gaming since the Atari 2600 was new so I have a fairly large list to pull from - though this is only a personal opinion). I just don't feel *any* game is worth a monthly fee, and yes I have tried ones that have them and have yet to find one.

In the end this argument is moot, they are already far enough along that these things are mostly set. Too many are reading what they want into what Anet has said, for example no level caps? Picturing having 80 points in fire magic? Did you not notice where they said the they would cap gains from levels to keep the playing field even? Guess not - it's just a bigger number over your head, only a measure that your e-peen is larger than the next ones (what many titles are now - and before you get angry yes I have a character currently maxing titles to show they have a larger e-peen). How about grouping - Yay they are gonna force it! Oh wait, that's right, they said they would just scale the environment so that a single player could still complete the game, just that large groups advance faster (but then, with advancement capped who cares?). Heck, they have said they will scale lower players *up* so that they can group with higher level players and still have fun - that is VERY much not in line with WoW and other MMORPG's.

So far what they have said could very well be a WoW lite, then again it could be GW (along with an effective level cap) with persistent areas and a slightly different way of soloing the game. Time will tell, and as we have seen with GW it will shift over time according to what the community wants and will make them money.

*shrug* as of right now there is a tug of war between the so called casual gamer with the hardcore one. Anet is banking on a casual gamer liking to have no monthly fees and play a MMORPG - anything that removes the ability of a casual gamer to play you can pretty much figure is not going to exist. The more hardcore people *are not* going to get their way in GW2, there is no way Anet could *ever* compete with WoW. If they started too actually do so Blizzard has more than enough money to bury them. But then, maybe I'm wrong and they see them selves as David getting ready to fling the stone at Goliath - while they have made some "mistakes" currently (and some I have been vocal about...*cough*BMP*cough*) I am pretty sure they are smarter than this. Better to obliquely attack them than give a head to head fight.

For the more hardcore crowd a 15 dollar a month fee is going to *always* make it such that a company is able to cater to them above and beyond what *any* no monthly fee company can. Blizzard could bury them in content and still make a MUCH higher margin than they could ever think of (Anet would need a negative margin to even keep up with the current situation). However GW and WoW are different games and will remain so - they aren't really competitors no matter how much some of their players want them to be. That or GW2 will die or will go to a monthly fee.

At no time did I say that people would leave, I said with the system you outline where as when a monks primary job is to heal that they will not get any drops. What your saying is that the a monk attacks every enemy? (Not trying to be a jerk here but when facing a hard area a healing monk does not have time to attack every target and even less likely it will be first one to land a hit (LOL, just pictured a debate between a smiter / 600 on drops - 50/50 ecto is bad enough). With the system you are outlining a monk would get far less drops then a warrior or elementalist. How many people are going to want to play monks then if they know they are not going to get any drops. Everyone will be playing rangers so they can land the first hit on all targets with one good barrage.


With the exception of talking to the hand I have to agree with you. I really see GW2 shaping up to be a game that I will not enjoy playing because I am too much of a casual player, 1 - 2 hours a day after the kids go to bed as a way to un-wind. Guess I will stick with GW1 and be able to farm by myself.


Pay to travel = Not casual player friendly.

Are you serious, or did you forget the /sarcasm tag?

I don't think there will be Monks, similar to those of GW1, i.e.: if they mean to make the game soloable, the Monk profession can no longer be focussed on being the Human/NPC alternative to potions.
I think pay to travel is as casual player friendly as it gets, all the while still keeping incentives for more in-depth manners of play. You still get to travel swiftly, but the option that offers opportunities for social encounters along the road will be financially stimulated; It would only make sense should the devs try to avoid repeating GW1's social disaster in GW2.

If im spending time having to run from place to place im going to be even less social.

This way when a guild member or a friend asks me if I want to do a mission with them I can just map straight to them. Without that I would most likely turn it down if it will take more than 5 mins to get there.

And im hardly going to spend 10 mins grabbing a team to run to another location, ill just go and leg it on my own.

I want to spend my time playing the game, not walking to a place where I can start having fun.

Maybe it's a "social disaster" for you, but map travel allows me to group with other players (within guild and alliance) much more often.

In WoW, it's much harder to offer or receive help due to overlong travel times. It just takes too darned long to get anywhere. The fact that you have to hoof it to get to a site initially in WoW (as in Guild Wars) is plenty enough "immersion" for me.

WoW would be much improved if it offered hearthstones to multiple locations (rather than just one) or -- better still -- if it introduced GW-style map travel. If map travel is not a feature of GW2 I will be very disappointed.

I'm pretty sure you're right about the Casual Gamer thing for Guild Wars, but I still think that GW can have a draw to the more Hardcore people, especially in terms of PvP.
Anyways I think there is something you hit on with Anet/Blizzard and that's content. I think GW would HUGELY benefit from a big increase in items, weapons & armor & customization. Simply because of the fact that loot is always more interesting when it's more unique. Things don't have to be uber rare if you simply have more options as to what to get. Since GW is more limited in terms of power-level than WoW(which I like), the only other option is skins. Plus it's always nice to discover new things even at high levels. It's weird now for me to think that I've pretty much seen all the items in GW.
Agreed. Having Asura gates will help immersion but not alter the game mechanic. I think the persistent world add an awesome social aspect & the instanced areas will leave the current private aspect intact.

I just hope they don't skimp on content volume because they have multiple races now. ie: only 3 sets of armor now because they have to accommodate 5 races. That would suck hard.

its one of the best things, that can happen to GW2 imo, when handled very careful, so that anet won't do the old mistakes, so mugc other developers made and made twice and tripple times again and again over time...

We all know the problems of persistant worlds...Anet has to prove now, that they are able to find new solutions to these well known problems, without coming to the point to make GW2 still only again instanced.
They have to show now, that there can be a traditional made mmorpg with persistant worlds, which don't has the problems of

1. Kill stealing and

2. Spawn Camping.
----------

2 Questions I personally really burn on, to receive answers from Anet to them, because these 2 points will be 2 things in the gameplay of GW2, when they get solved by Anet, that will be totally unique to GW2 then...

The reason is simple.. because unless than, there exiists no traditional persistanced mmorpg, which had not those 2 big problems to fight with.

If it's Ragnarok Online 1/2, Line Age 2, if it was the Diabolo Line, Ultima, Aion, Archlord, Everquest 1/2... whatever..they all had the problems of ks'ing and spawn camping, even WoW has surely these problems or Perfect World, but on that one I'm not sure, haven't seen PW yet in gameplay action, other then 1 trailer, which shows its really PERFECT Character Creator


However, I also wait very much on GW2, alone by the fact, that GW2 will be alot more like a traditional real MMORPG, startign with persistant worlds, thus having later a much better RPG atmossphere ingame, which makes it possible to play ingame much better RP, because the world will receive with persistence a much better feeling of being filled with LIFE and thats one thing, thats imo most important to any mmo game...

if the game feels to you, as if its dead, cause of simple way too much instances, then theres something really wrong with the gameplay concept imo

Sure thing - and that wouldn't even affect the "casual player" (however that is actually defined) because it would simply be skins. I *do* think Anet has made mistakes by continually making old ultra-rare skins more and more common, however they seem to have moved into having mini's be the real rarity based items.

New models are also probably one of the more expensive things they can make, the meshes and such take A LOT of time to produce and test, the more combinations the more it cost (and that grows exponentially). They already have threads complaining about some clipping with certain combinations and reskins. Currently there is no way they could afford to test/fix all the combinations with the models in existence let alone if they added more - I would say they would really need something along the lines of a monthly fee to do so. Either that or people accept some clipping and reskins and unfortunately it is going to generally cause less problems just not to make them.

My general thoughts are you are right and if they *could* do that they would have. Personally I'll accept some clipping or reskins but I seem to be in the minority.

idk if you've ever played wow, but its really not that bad on there from what i've played. of course they have atleast 50 different servers as well...