GW1's future with GW2 taking the scene?

So the typical GW2 PvE play style is to attack/engage, then block/dodge, then run away (or die), heal up, wait for heal to recharge, re-engange. block/dodge, then run away (or die), heal up, wait for heal to recharge, etc... until foes are dead then repeat with next foe group?

Did I miss something or are there alternate tactics to employ in GW2 PvE based on the GW2 mechanics? I guess only engaging when there are contributing NPC's in the area, just hoping that some other player happens by while you're engaged and decides to engage too is a reasonable tactic...

Unlike GW1 where the general PvE tactic is: kill the foes B4 your healers run out of energy. So in GW1 we do what we can to control mob size when we engage. In GW1 PvP the tactics are essentially kill faster than your opponents. Fortunately everyone has a specific ROLE in GW1 PvP (cause it's essentially a Rock/Paper/Scissors skill structure). I haven't yet been exposed to the need for a specific ROLE for ANY character in GW2 PvP. I suspect it's there, but then again maybe not cause that's one of the "issues" that ANET tried to address by making GW2...

That's exactly what they tried to address, and they failed miserably at it. This evident in the over simplified skill system, weapon system, and the fact that The Mists pvp forces preset skills and items on your character.

This is going to become a war of opinons. As for me, I am in the same mindset as Odbrook. Some games for whatever reason, are just a wrong fit for certain players.

I plan on trying GW2 when a demo comes out but for now, it's not the game for me.

Dedicated healing just becomes a requirement to play, as evidenced by every other MMO including GW1. The end result in either case is that one side dies. Having a dedicated healing class just makes this take a lot longer for both sides. Now it is up to individual player skill to survive as long as possible. Damage mitigation isn't supposed to prevent death, it's just to keep you alive a bit longer so you can dps a bit more and maybe kill the other guy (who also has no healer). This is probably the biggest change in GW2 that I actually agree with. PvP with healers is needlessly slow and the advantage that it gives you acts as a ten-foot wall for PUGs. GW1 already broke the holy trinity by getting rid of traditional tanking, getting rid of healers is the next logical step to allow people to play with whatever group they want (or can manage to find). If that result has been achieved, and you're seeing PUGs form more quickly, then Anet has achieved the intended goal of taking out this requirement to play.

Right, they made pugs quicker, but at the cost of easier deaths.

There are games, such as GW1 and Champions Online, that let's you play a dedicated healer, but that doesn't mean they are needed. Rather, the group is rewarded for having a healer, but its not required.

People have the mindset that healers are required whenever they are available, which is why new age gamers advocate against the trinity system. However, that is often a one sided argument which is usually based off of misplaced conceptions. Adding a monk/priest class in GW2 won't automatically change the content of the game so that healers are mandatory. Yes, there will be groups of players that will want a healer, but that's going to happen regardless. I can guarantee you that in a month or so, people are going to start mandating a character be straight up support, again not because they are required, but because groups are more often successful with one than without.

That's because the game is meant to be challenging, and because the new mechanics still need time to get used to. Not dying requires skill.

And the game IS designed to be more successful with a healthy balance between damage, support and control, so yes, support roles will be as necessary as the other two.

It just happens that you can support with any profession this time. There's no reason to stick 1/3 of the roles the game has to offer, to one and only one of the 8 professions available. Professions are not supposed to be more necessary than others by design, and playes are not supposed to be forced to use specific professions so they can party with their friends. This is an evolution.

You dislike the "simplification" of building, but then you think the game would have more strategical depth by adding a healer profession, when that would render most support builds from other professions pointless or make them way too conditional.

Very subjective. The strat building was simplified, the skills themselves are harder to use. Playing an elementalist in GW1 is kid's play compared to playing an elementalist in GW2, for example. (The warrior might be the exception.) Also, the complexity of GW1's skill system was nullified by the fact that it couldn't be properly balanced. It was an illusion, and a rich source of gimmick builds, little else. Playing GW1 effectively means picking a few optimal meta builds (usually from PvX) and making minimal ajustments. In practise, GW1 became a very simple game of build wars outside of hardcore pvp, and it's now at a state where the game plays itself for you with heroes. GW2's gives you premade set of skills, but those were properly designed to be challenging, and you can still customize your build with non-weapon skills, in a GW1-ish fashion, and with traits.

You'll also need plenty of control to survive and to kill in GW2. Damage, support and control are the trinity of the new game. Also, no clear rock/ paper/ scissors structure this time. Although of course, counters still exist.

You'll need to have a role in GW2. If you try to be a jack-of-all-trades, you're going to be mediocre. Same rule as in every other MMO here, really.

I love how you advocate against a healer class, but promote healing builds. Nice double standard there. Anet can easily make a healing class, yet have it so it doesn't render other support types invalid. GW1 is a perfect example of this. If you digress, then I suggest you look into Rt, Ne, or even Me builds. Also, in Tera Online, the Mystic is more often the preferred healing/support class, even though their healing ability is dwarfed by a Priest, simply because they offer better buffs/debuffs. Point in case, if Anet does it right, then it wouldn't be an issue. But I guess that's asking for too much.

Either way, the lack of a healing class is one of the reasons why I don't like GW2. That's my opinion. Honestly, I don't care if you think its a rational standpoint or not. And even if there was a healing class, I would probably still dislike GW2 for what is because of all the other reasons I listed in page 1. So all of this is really a moot point. You like GW2, and I don't. Its just that simple. If someone wants to ask my opinion, I will give it to them. That doesn't mean you need to agree with it to for it to be a valid perspective.

Of course you can - because (amazingly enough) two people can have vastly different opinions on the same thing. That's what we offered - our opinions on the game based on our enjoyment or lack thereof with the game based on what we personally find enjoyable. No where did I say GW2 was a poor game - simply one that does not appeal to me as a gamer, and I thusly listed some of the reasons why. To me, in my personal and humble opinion, which is shared by others, GW1 is more fun to play and more befits my playstyle than GW2, therefore is a better game than GW2.

Hanok

feel really sorry for you folks that refuse to let go of gw1, it's dead guys, buy gw2 or find another game.

I see nothing wrong with refusing to let go of an excellent game that still has life, especially when there is nothing to substitute it with. Feel free to enjoy GW2 as much as you like. Personally, I'll stick with GW1 until it dies or until Anet gets their heads from between their cracks and produces a proper sequel.

I have to agree with Lavans here....there is NOTHING in gw2 that appeals to me...they ruined everything I enjoyed about the original...
gw2 gave me a huge migraine the first day I played it...why would I want to play a game that makes me ill???????

Before this becomes a GW1 vs GW2 thread, just believe people that they prefer GW1 over GW2.

(People who have played both games should know how little if anything both have in common gameplay wise. This is not a quality judgement per se, but not everyone who loved GW1 as much as I do should expect to love GW2 automatically even more so.
Some even prefer the camera of GW1 etc. etc.. GW1 and GW2 are two entirely different games set in the same universe. I am not sure if the events of GW2 have nearly the same longevity as GW1 to me. I especially doubt if GW2 starts at the "end"/max level as GW1 did, it rather seems to have no kind of endgame activity at all but I reserve judgement till I am there)

I am afraid GW1 is slowly phased out. They will run it on life support, but don't expect another War in Kryta or even half of that. Maybe there will be an event now and then for a new green item so that junior programmers can test their skills in the GW1 live team but I expect nothing more.

The tragedy is that I find the system of GW1 to be FAR more innovative and worthwhile to be improved than the event-based GW2. Allowing people to drop in/out of games with friends whenever they want would be a great addition to GW1, see Diablo 3 and how nicely it works. GW2 shows us the worst of both worlds, servers, home servers, guesting that's not in, overflow shards and it being a PITA to play with a friend if you manage to do so at all. The "join friend in X" feature is sadly broken atm. But even if all systems would work it would be a mess...

Sorry to have deviated from topic myself. My core thought is that an improved version of GW1 has way more potential and especially long term potential than the event and scaling systems of GW2.

Agreed. I have been a gamer more than 30 years if you count my time with pencil and paper D&D. In all that time, there have been many games I still go back to play on a regular basis today in between sessions of my current faves - Wizardry (on occasion even on my original IBM PC XT), SimCity and SC 2, Stronghold, Eye of the Beholder, Baldur's Gate, etc.

There is no reason to abandon a game you enjoy simply because it is old. I don't judge the quality of a game based on technical aspects such as graphics, as obviously those are limited by the tech era in which the game is released. I judge a game based on its gameplay and how much enjoyment I get out of that. GW2, for all its strengths is lacking in that dept. for me, therefore, GW1 will always be the superior game to me. The only difference is in that we don't technically "own" the game, so the ultimate fate and ability to play it long term like those others I mention is solely in the hands of the developer.

With GW2, Anet decided to make a more traditional MMO, but with their GW1 spin on it. As I mentioned before, not exactly innovative, but more of a mashup of other ideas they tried to improve upon, including the server infrastructure. To me GW1's mode of a single "shard" but multiple instances fits better with the model and is one I wish all MMOs had adopted, including GW2. With GW2 it's a hybrid of the GW1 and traditional model, and one I don't think is appealing in the long term.

GW2, like Windows 8, may have had good intentions and has a good core infrastructure and has made some improvements, but the interface has grown worse and appears to be change for the sake of change when none was needed. It is functional, but clunky to use depending on the device you are running it on. For me GW2 turned out the same way - improvements in some areas, but the changes made seem unnecessary and detract from the rest of the experience. For some people it works just fine - for others, not so much. Again, this is not to say that GW2 is a bad game, but just not one that works for me. Clearly, it will be successful, however, whether that success equals the success of GW1, only time will tell. I do think it's interesting to note that despite all the hype and positive media about the game over the last five years, at this point in time only 25% at best of the original GW fanbase as moved on to the new game. To me, that is more telling than anything.

Hanok

This makes no sense. Until GW is playable is not dead.
I play other games as well, and probably others do the same, but I'll never stop playing GW regardless. There's no reason to let go the, imho, best game that's ever been made, and that after all those years is still unmatched. As others said, there's really nothing to sobstitute it with. On top of all gw2 which only shares the name and the place.

I advocate against a healer class the same way I would go against a DPS-only class or a tank-only class. Why artificially limit a profession? Just because it became a tradition in other mmos? To note that even GW1's monks were supposed to be more than healers, with their smiting skills. It just kind of didn't work.

If you're talking about Rt healers, N/Rt healers and N/Mos, then that's basically what GW2 does. They give you flexible professions, and allow you to mold the way you would like them best. Water elementalists, Aura elementalists, lots of Guardian builds, Shout Warriors, Banner Warriors, spirit Rangers, several Necromancer builds, even healing phantasm Mesmers. The flexibility to go support with each of them is there, although of course, some profs are more naturally fitting to go support than others.

So, hero builds like the SoS Resto, or the Curses Resto, or the MM Protter are pretty much the kind of playstyle we can expect from GW2's support builds.

But this only works well in GW1, because of heroes AI, which can "coordenate" between themselves automatically, and change targets lightning fast. For human players, extreme player health bar- focused bars are still the best.

Also, I don't want to give the idea that I'm trying to change your opinion. Just giving my opposite point-of-view, or else this thread would be all about gw1 veterans who don't enjoy a different game because it's a different game.

It seems people disregarded what ArenaNet said about Guild Wars 2 from the start: "forget everything you knew about Guild Wars 1." This game is completely different than the original and for great reasons. Guild Wars 1 played more like Diablo II, an online RPG, than a conventional MMO such as Guild Wars 2. The two share almost no gameplay value which is honestly neither good or bad. Guild Wars 2 is a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing brilliant game as far as MMOs go and blows every other one out of the water. Their mechanics are inspired by GW1's, and have been implemented in a suitable fashion for a game this open. I hope Guild Wars 1 is old and will no doubt lose its future to Guild Wars 2- but not because "one is better than the other," but because one game is seven years old whilst the other only came out two days ago. The Guild Wars 1 era has ended and will no doubt slowly taper off. Sad to say, but it is complete truth.

Also, @Lavans, that is such an ignorant statement in regards of GW2 applying game mechanics from Aion. That game is by far the most broken MMO on the market. It was failed Korean-to-American MMO and if any game would ever try to implement game mechanics from Aion, they would surely fail. I'm totally expecting a retort, but being busy in Guild Wars 2, I probably won't reply fast enough so I'll list off the reasons: RNG based armor system, tremendously high armor over skill gap, godstones, rifting, high end armor for low level smurfing, the Abyss and flight combat, sieges, PURE quest griding dependence due to high cooldown on dungeons, exclusive communities and their exploits (Benny Lava/relax), RNG in general (crafting or socketing), high money sinks, and overpowered class skills (Boon of Quickness best 2.0 example). That game was and will always be horrible no matter how much they try to fix that game.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. I found more enjoyment from Aion than I did from GW2.


You're right, a lot of us did disregard it, and for valid reason. If you're going to name a game as a sequel, somewhere people are going to EXPECT it to have some of the same qualities and mechanics as the predecessor. Considering that GW2 is a whole new game, personally, it should have been named something other than Guild Wars 2. This is first and foremost a video game. Calling GW2 a sequel simply because it's set in the same universe will do nothing but cause misguided expectations from those who are looking for a successor to GW1.

Here's where I agree with you. One of the problems I have with GW1 is that you can't be successful in every area of the game without certain professions, in essence the Holy Trinity. After Factions and Nightfall, that sort of eased with the additional of other support professions that could become effective healers. I think they just took that one step further with GW2, in part by making each profession more self-sufficient than the profs were in GW1. However, while I think the Trinity is less necessary in GW2 overall, they certainly did not eliminate the need for the Trinity. I think, as time goes on, you will still need to see the Trinity in order to be the most effective in areas of the game. Sure you might be taking 5 Warriors into a dungeon, which would be nigh impossible in GW1, but within that group will you most certainly see the need for the Tank-DPS-Support/Heal to effectively complete the dungeon.

So it's those little things that helped to turn me off to the game. Anet spouting high ideals such as destroying the Trinity, having a better server backbone, or removing the traditional quest/grouping system, when in all reality all they did was modify the looks of each. In some aspects, it is an improvement, but in others it is not.

I don't recall a day in the last 7 years where GW servers had to be taken down for maintenance (i.e. the game was taken down so you could not play it). Now, GW2 servers are coming down for maintenance - just like every other MMO does. Professions have been changed to limit the choice of build you have and to have less of a reliance on the Trinity, but I would be very surprised if you do not eventually see the need to Trinity like groups and the rise of CC builds and a metagame despite the changes - just like there is in every other MMO. They removed the ! from NPCs but still replaced them with Hearts and Dynamic Quests (which essentially are just the repeatable missions a la Eye of the North), and your actions in each still just boil down to the "fetch this", "escort that", or "kill them" quest goal - just like in every other game in RPG history pretty much.

So in the end, like many other games: SWTOR; Tabula Rasa; Aion; The Secret World; Lord of the Rings On-line; Star Trek On-line; Age of Conan; Vanguard - there were many ideals and hyperbole spouted out about each, and theyvhad brought some unique takes and mechanics to their worlds, but in the end, they all ended up the same. If you look at things, the two MMOs that have truly stood the test of time have been Guild Wars and World of Warcraft. Two very different games that appeal to a different, but vast, audience. In the end, I don't think GW2 will be able to escape that fate either - it will succeed and continue much like Eve, but in the end GW1 will be the one to stand the test of time of out both offerings. When GW2 hits its peak, I think you will find at most 2-3 million copies sold and perhaps at most 750k-800k active players - still shy I think of GW1's best numbers.

Exactly - just like the big disappointment in SWTOR's space game despite the fact that BioWare said time and time again, that space would not be a focus of the game at launch and would be updated at a later time. Just like the Elder Scrolls On-line will have nothing to do with the single-player games other than names in the game world and on the box. There is nothing being built into the game right now to truly make it an Elder Scrolls game and keep it from being anything else but being Generic Fantasy MMO 12473.

Anet had a tremendous opportunity to capitalize on the success of the design and mechanics of GW1 and really take the genre into a new direction. They chose however, (in essence) to take the Civilization series and make an FPS with Civ VI as the title.

Hanok

I think anyone who completely writes off an MMO 2-3 days after release has to have some pretty unrealistic expectations from the get go, especially given the genre.

I hated GW1 when I first played it.Only 8 skills?Fed-Ex quests?No world PvP?Holy trinity?Max lvl 20?,OMFG [email protected], etc, etc

What a complete turd of a game.

Then I gave it more than a few days play time and years later I rate it as one of the best games I've ever played.Sure it's all subjective and some games take time to grow on you and some games don't, you just instantly dig it.

As such while many of you have valid points regarding your dislike of GW2 the fact most are saying "Nope...did'nt like it...uninstall" after a few days release is jumping the gun a bit imho.If you love GW so much I would have liked to have thought you would give GW2 and Anet more than a few days play time before throwing the towel in.

To each their own.

To be blunt, if a game fails to captivate my interests after 7 consecutive hours, or I have to TRY to find a reason to enjoy it and ultimately fail, then the game is as good as dead to me.

For me, not only is it an issue of Anet completely ignoring the existence of every single mechanic of GW1 that makes me look at GW2 with disdain, its the fact they forced nearly every mechanic and element that I personally detest in a mmo/rpg.