Learning From Other MMOs the good and bad

I will just note that new content needs to be added and that that will eventually make world so large that thinning of population happens regardless of what you do.
Agreed. Map travel must be in game, mostly because forming parties with other humans is much much easier if it takes then 5 secconds to appear at spot rather than 5 minutes.
Agreed. People add to guild/fl person, not character.
Not agreed, too many skills mean huge mess. Ofcourse, too few skills which are even more thinned out by being Heal rank 1 to Heal rank 9 are even worse than too many skills.
Basically, cheap respecs, agreed.
Huh?
Casters being interupted by physical autoattacks are pretty lame in other MOOS, especially if you are caster.
Don§t fortget that non-harcodre people make most money ...

I've liked all that ArenaNet has described about GW2 so far in the published articles/interviews. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

PvPers will love the immediate availability of armor/weapons/skills, instead of needing to unlock. The WvW style sounds interesting, as described by Jeff Strain, and I might try it out.

I think the main problem with skill balancing in GW, came about due to the "add a standalone campaign". That is also the reason for masses of unused skills; better ones came along or were already there. Hopefully, they will "improve/nerf" existing skills in GW2 without dumping new ones into the mix.

I understand that they are reworking the professions. There have been threads about this with guesses as to which ones will get the heave. To me, even if I lose my mesmer, hopefully some profession with be similar.

I would like them to keep the easy restructuring of your character. With a mix of persistant and instanced areas, I would like to see a method for changing your skills at anytime outside of battle and not just in an outpost. I don't want to have to run back to town and restart only not to have the same spawn.

With the attitude of ArenaNet to spawn camping and loot stealing (original reason for GW instanced system), I don't think you need to worry that they won't address those problems.

While I can see why someone would like things to have a more realistic flavor in this way, this is one of those cases where sacrificing realism means improved gameplay experience. People shouldn't suffer at the cost of a realistic world. Its like RPG's. The reason people hate more complex more realistic systems is that it bogs down the whole process. Rolling on charts a million times over to determine which limb you lost and how much bloody you lose and whether your shirt is ruined while more 'realistic' just bogs down the pace of the game. Restricting Map travel is the same.



As I clarified in my 2nd post I'm looking for a balance between variety and ... well balance. Not so many skills that its impossible to balance the game.



I was speaking of PvP here not PvE which I should have clarified.


This is the wrong way to go if you goal is complex team combat interactions. DPS and damage already matters, but interrupts add an excellent additional layer to combat interactions.


I don't want full world PvP. I want to integrate the already planned World Pvp into the world into the game world in certain zones like the core servers on WAR. I don't want gank fests either. What works in WAR is the existence of PvP areas in the game world. When you pass into such areas in a zone you are 'flagged for PvP' and you have time to leave if you like at which point you are no longer flagged. Much like PQ's they have the potential to add a good dynamic aspect to the game and provide more reasons for people to be in the world.

Thing is, interrupting often takes a lot more skill than DPSing. And while it might be annoying, its a great part of Guild Wars and prevents games from being "who go the most crits and fast casts."

This is a potential problem. At worst it should be the case that at each stage of added content (new expansion etc) the game world should not be too spread out within that added layer of content.

Just to clarify, in GW combat interactions between teams of players was often a complex interaction. Killing even a single player was not an easy task. Doing so required a reasonably high level of team coordination. In Age of Conan for example, the opposite was true. Death was too easy and too quick (both single player and team play) and so a great deal of complexity was removed from combat which makes it less interesting. I don't know how things stand in the game now, but this was one of the reasons I don't quit.

There will be a lot for casual players to do. Having a high skill ceiling makes possible exciting and valuable competitive pvp. There should also be PvE areas that have a high skill ceiling. Casual players should be able to have a good game experience and most PvE enables this. Casual forms of PvP enable this. But reducing everything to the lowest common denominator is terrible. You can have a game that is fun for casual players that also makes room for more dedicated players (GvG, higher end pve etc.).

Actually, a new model for new content, which they might go something near in GW2, is to have a changing world. So, instead of just adding a new continent with every new chapter they should make modifications to the old world. E.g. slipping in new zones between the current ones, changing major areas and towns, actually progressing a storyline across the whole world.

Kinda how in GW1 they wiped out Ascalon, you couldn't go back there ever. It would be cool to have Lion's Arch as a major town for a year then out comes the expansion and a series of quests where you fight to defend LA from Dragonspawn (or some such), if not enough players succeed (say, over a period of a month the player base needs to have completed 50000 related quests) then LA is permanently overrun and becomes a high-level dungeon, however if the players reach their goal then LA is safe and remains a town for the rest of the game until the storyline progresses again.

Some people might complain and say 'hey we never got to see LA before it was burnt and taken over' but in RL 'we never got to see the hanging gardens of babylon before they collapsed' things move on, so should games. A real sense of history, time moving on and events that cannot be repeated is something I'd like to see in GW2.

Some games have already done things like this, but never on mass. Events like the Gate of AQ in WoW, or the changing of Blade's Edge Mountains when they added Ogri'la. CoH has done it too, some zones completely changing their level-range and look as a major event occurs.

In essence, this is basically adding content while removing some older content. In other words, throwing big chunks of content that cost lot of $ away while replacing it with another that too, costs $.

While you might get "History" feeling, you seriously loose "Big World" feeling because it is always same size and immersion feeling because world is, well, random patchwork of zones.

Also, this has some other issues:

* High Level Lions Arch dungeon downgrading to Lowbie zone would net QQ from "Elites" which farm that dungeon or something.
* People might love one of version of that land. You would soo get "QQ people are finishing too much quests that keeps LA lowbie zone, i want lich battles back."
* QQ, I want to play in lowbie LA version.
* It would seriously suck for casual players or people who take things slow. Having zone overhaul while in middle of interesting quest line? No Way.
* Old "I want to relive fun outside LA with lowlelvel Alt" would not be possible.

If we assume that this is done a LOT in game, and that instead of adding new areas you would add new versions of old areas to "rotating list", you ends with something flawed:

* World feels inconsitent and if it changes too rapidly immersion is gone.
* You have huge portion of content inaccessible. That makes no sense to player, and no sense to developer. You just dont develop area so that it would sit on bench waiting for its turn, thats wasting money and time. As player, you don't wait for area you want to play in to reappear, you do different stuff. I.E. log out and play some other game.
* As game gets older, more and more areas would be "wasted resources" because they would be unused.

Obviously I didn't mean it to be a very regular thing. I meant maybe once a year or something like that.

However this is one of the things that Anet has actually said they will be doing in GW2. Their example is: A dragon might come to attack a bridge, if players there at the time defend the bridge and defeat the dragon then the bridge is saved. If the players don't beat the dragon then the bridge gets destroyed and remains broken until a team of carpenters come along, under protection of players, to rebuild it.

Their example was obviously scaled down, as the dragons in GW2 are such mighty enemies I doubt we'll be fighting them as they destroy something minor like bridges. What they were referring to was quests and missions that actually change the face of the world.

I doubt the world will turn into a patchwork of zones, because the whole point is to progress a storyline across the whole world. You wouldn't have LA be captured by Dragonspawn without altering/adding new quests to the area around LA and even as far out as The Shiverpeaks to reflect the change.

The only issue you might have is reducing areas to level in, e.g. if all of Kryta is engulfed in a huge zombie army then where do you play lvls 40-50? New areas would have to be added, which is a waste of Dev time. However, we don't even know if they'll go with a standard leveling system, enemy levels could be dynamic, meaning you'll have long-time players leveling in the same area as new players, doing the same quests, just the enemies for them are harder/higher level.

But you made good points

ANet has said that the monsters will level according to player level/party size.

OP, your post is a great list of some things that GW -really- gets right that most MMOs just fail fail fail. It really puts things into perspective, particularly in regards to the population problem WAR is suffering, one that usually only affects games that have been out many years (SWG, UO). To your list I would add the separation of aesthetics and stats on gear (and the capping of gear stats at an accessible level), something very very few games have the daring to try, and fewer still stick with it.

Really? If so, that clinches it: I'm not buying GW2.
As Oblivion proved: having monster level according to player level is the single worst idea in gaming ever.

I disagree Numa since that keeps ALL areas of the game challenging from the start. I don't know why people balk at games staying challenging in ALL areas of the game instead of everyone having to goto just one END of the BOX for harder challenges. Old fogies living in the past i suppose that want to be able to farm easy levels cause they can farm 24/7 of the day and make a profit from it. I really hope they do away or make it extremely hard to solo farm in GW2 since it was rediculously easy in this one.

If soloing didn't give you the same drops it'd be understandable. It would be an encouragement to play with other players, and it's something many would give up just to not have to deal with bad players.

The reason we're seeing GW2 going the soloing right is because GW1's party system is, while good on paper, terrible. Couple the rather large party requirement (8 people!?) with how separated the game population is and it's quite easy to understand why.

So, it's not only that we're not being given a large amount of heroes or henchies, it's that there won't be a need for them - and that's a very good thing, considering how borked over the party system + partying became in GW1. Yes, having a BG style party set up was quite fun and going with a crowd of homies in each area was awesome as well - but considering all of the numerous implications that came from both, it's a blessing to see it go in GW2.

I don't care how you feel about me, but I totally agree with you on this one!

That's why I simply loved Oblivion, Mass Effect, and other games following the same idea of scaling the game to level. The fact that I can do the game in any order and *not* see the same progression of enemies and items - among other things - was quite a refreshing experience. If GW2 did the same thing it would mean that I would not be stuck having to play in the endgame farming areas: the whole *world* becomes a challenge.

Global PvP is a joke, it is in my (admittedly limited) experience with other MMOs that it's little more than childish gankfest. The PvP side of GW was structured to facilitate competition, with some side shows such as RA and AB to accommodate the casual PvP player. If anet goes to far with this global PvP crap I just know it will kill the game from the onset because all the new players will be enticed to run around being stupid in global PvP rather than joining and building competitive guilds.

Global PvP is a sideshow and it will remain that way and will not pull interested parties out of structured PvP. It certainly won't in my case or anyone I know. World PvP also doesn't have to be a gank fest. As I've repeated on numerous occasions I not talking about ganking. PvP in the gaming world is not the same as complete unrestricted PvP. Core servers on WAR separate PvP areas within zones in which players become flagged for PvP only when in those areas which are designated for PvP, keep taking, strategic point taking etc. It becomes less about ganking players and more about players forming groups to achieve objectives that will give bonuses for doing so (taking a keep, capturing a point). It gives reason for people to stay in the world and work together rather than pulling them out of it.

The intent was to have world PvP take place in 'the mists'- whatever that is. Which is outside the game world as I understand or instanced. But if you're opening up a world as is the plan in gw2 instead of having an instanced game then you want people in it. A good way to do this, which i think can be successful, is to keep global pvp in the world rather than pulling people out for it.

I might even suggest it will do more to faciliate a transition from pve to pvp than there is now as it will make pvp a more regular part of the game world, and not something detached and unfamiliar.

Things GW did right:

1. Combat mechanics. It's so much more fun at the basic levels than other MMOs. Things like bull's strike, d-shot, RoF, and power block are actually all amazing idea that you don't even notice until you play another MMO with 50 skill-less damage abilities and 5 different heals that do all the same thing: heal for X.

1 B. Crowd Control. I really enjoy not having fear and sheep in this game. Please don't put them in.

2. PvP characters. If I'm bored of my mage and wanna try a warlock, I have to spend a month leveling one and two months gearing it only to decide that I like mage more after all?

3. Standardized gear. Pretty much same as above. Gear wars aren't fun... and yeah, loot is part of the MMO fare, but keep it out of PvP plx. You can even have overpowered epix that let you two-shot things in this game, but make them unusable in PvP, or make it turn into a standard "PvP sword" but retain the skin, so you still get the reward of looking cool.

4. Graphics. Yeah, it's not exactly a gameplay issue, but GW, being 3.5 years old, looks prettier than WAR, which is 2 months old and bends over my videocard at max settings, while GW gives me over 100 FPS.

1-3 have pretty much the universal agreement of GW players I think. 4 in particular has been annoying. WAR and AOC got very little out of machine power. Or another way of putting it, the system spec cost was too high for what you get in the end. WAR in particular is not that impressive and actually has run worse than AOC for me.

Sounds like I'm not the only one that cancelled there WAR subscription to come back here

As far as I'm concerned there are a large number of things that that game did wrong that I wouldn't like to see in GW2.
1) Single monster based PvE.
When you attack a monster, that monster comes running to kill you. In guildwars, if you attack a monster that monster comes running, so does its healer and its shutdown and dps freinds. It is this group interaction that leads to interesting, complex PvE and is totally absent in WAR. (True story, I attacked a dark elf while he was playing cards, his buddies kept playing while I killed their friend right in front of them).

2) Non rule based PvE
When you fight creatures in GW PvE, they use the same skills that you have availbale instead of randomly named skills. This allows for interrupts and knockdowns to be used to interrupt key abilities instead just hitting them when they're ready and hoping that random-monster-ability-xxx was a good one to interrupt.

3) Mixed group composition
In any given area of WAR every monster type is the same (in fact almost every single creature in the game is the "run up to melee range and attack you" type). I don't remember seeing a healer the whole time I was there.

4) Poor Monster movement
The movement for monsters consists of 2 instructions "run close enough to attack" and "if I'm nearly dead attempt to limp away (even though its pointless because I don't have any healers)". Not once did a ranged monster (the few that exist) kite away from a melee attacker.

5) Artificial AI Targetting Mechanics
"Tanks" in war have skills which make AI attack them to the exclusion of everyone else. This hate mechanic removes all positioning from from the game. As a healer it didn't matter where I stood because they would always attack the tank even if I was standing right next to them easily healing away all incoming damage.

6) Lack of skill choices
There are specialisation trees that you build, but these only consist of an additional 1-4 skills. This means that every instance of any class plays pretty much the same and you have no choice for choosing skills to vary game play.

7) Lack of team based PvP
War consisted of 2 types of PvP: 1) ORvR which boiled down to whoever has the biggest team wins - this form of combat is typified by groups of 50-100 players moving round as one big unit and killing any small groups of players running around the pvp areas doing quests. 2) Scenarios which consist of you and up to 6 of your friends teamed up with other random players to fight against another random group of 12 players (feels just like a cross between AB and RA)

8) Way too long before level playing fields are reached.
Playing against characters that are stronger or weaker than yourself removes all meaning and fun from the battle whether you're competing in PvP or in PvE. In the 2 months I played the game I reached Rank 36 (max 40) and Renown rank 32 (max 80). At that rate I estimate it would have taken around 10 months of play before I would have reached the point where playing fields were level and another 24 months before rank 40/80 is the norm. The highest level gear are random drops from the king only (a single person gets a drop when after the entire server manages to push the opposing team back to their capital city and defeats them there), I can only guess astronomical at the amounts of time required before "most" people are decked out in that gear.

8) MMO Mentality
This one is a little hard to explain, but I guess boils down the game being structured around absorbing time rather than delivering enjoyment. As an example, WAR also had a halloween event where they gave masks. The difference there is that [i]one person per server[i] received a devil mask every time that the event triggered (every 1-3 hrs... randomly, so you had to stand around waiting for it). There were people grinding the event over and over in the hope that maybe they'd be one that gets it. A second mask was supplied as a reward for killing 480 ghosts (and you thought the kill 10 minotaur quest was bad!)

Sucky events are norm in MMOs.

WoW for example: Brewfest - okay, there is some random "fun" stuff to use and wear. To get it, you have to use event currency which can be only obtained by two repeatable quests. Couple of Days grind? You bet. (PS: that currency disappears from inventory after set time so you can not use leftovers on next instance of event.).

Its all about being structured about wasting as much time as possible.

(Soynas "Please remove ALL interupt skills as they are annoying as hell on the receiving end. Daze is rediculous as well. Bring a game where power and dps rules not how many times you can disrupt somebody down." - I dunno if this is troll, but anyway: In all other MMOs simple meele autoattacks interupt spell casting, its like being permanently dazed. Yarly.)

I'll echo everyone else's opinions about combat mechanics. So many other MMOs only have 10 or so types of skills, deal x damage, deal x damage over time, heal x,...... Whereas GW has got a myriad of different skills which have different effects, things like knock the target down when the target is moving, and different sorts of interrupts rather than just 'stun'. That is what makes GW combat interesting, that and the lack of tanks. Although I have a feeling that some sort of tanking mechanics will be present in GW2, even if it's not a taunt, a tank's attacks will cause more threat than a healers.