[Rvik]

Hello all,

I would like to present you interview with Eric Flannum for Polish fansite, GuildWars.Pl (and now also GuildWars2.Pl)

http://guildwars2.pl..._exclusive,a545

You can change between Polish/English in top right corner.

Have a nice read!

Edited by Ryuzaki, 19 October 2011 - 10:19 AM.

[xXx87]

Nice interview!
I will like to see the area near the groove like a amazonian forest :)

[Jostedalsosten]

Quote

For example, we won’t be launching with another map with trebuchets and destroyable terrain

I certainly hope there's destructable terrain on every map. There's no reason to remove that feature, just because you remove the trebuchets.

[Tr0n]

I'm not very keen on the idea of no friendly fire in structured PvP.

At least add a "hardcore" option when creating custom servers, with decreased health, increased damage to skills and friendly fire. It would make the game less "skill spammy" and more tactical, position aware. It would also make for a more interesting game, since players would die quicker.

Edited by Tr0n, 19 October 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[Jostedalsosten]

Tr0n said:

I'm not very keen on the idea of no friendly fire in structured PvP.

At least add a "hardcore" option when creating custom servers, with decreased health, increased damage to skills and friendly fire. It would make the game less "skill spammy" and more tactical, position aware. It would also make for a more interesting game, since players would die quicker.

Yes, but also more grief friendly, and it's apparent that ANet is strictly anti-griefing in any form. I don't really mind there being no FF.

[Tr0n]

Well, if you don't want hardcore, you just don't join the server that has hardcore enabled.

[Nemui]

if they do implement other pvp modes a while after launch, i'd like those to be compatible with all previously introduced maps as well, so every map could be played in whichever mode you want. probably not a good idea from a balancing standpoint, i know.

[Ethos]

Tr0n said:

Well, if you don't want hardcore, you just don't join the server that has hardcore enabled.

Hardcore, semi-hardcore, softcore, carebear servers...

Why does everyone just wants to split the community? I don't want "look at me I play hardcore" and "noob, go to a carebear PvP server" comments flying around in chat. And that's exactly what will probably happen if they split community too much over things like this.

I don't want to see servers with other rulesets TBH.

[Tr0n]

Ethos said:

Hardcore, semi-hardcore, softcore, carebear servers...

Why does everyone just wants to split the community? I don't want "look at me I play hardcore" and "noob, go to a carebear PvP server" comments flying around in chat. And that's exactly what will probably happen if they split community too much over things like this.

I don't want to see servers with other rulesets TBH.

It's just a preference, just like professions and races and weapons and armors are. You don't think you are spiting the community with enabling them to choose a race, are you?

[filaret]

Tr0n said:

It's just a preference, just like professions and races and weapons and armors are. You don't think you are spiting the community with enabling them to choose a race, are you?

No, because they're playing together...

[Lyssa's Muse]

Tr0n said:

I'm not very keen on the idea of no friendly fire in structured PvP.

At least add a "hardcore" option when creating custom servers, with decreased health, increased damage to skills and friendly fire. It would make the game less "skill spammy" and more tactical, position aware. It would also make for a more interesting game, since players would die quicker.

The problem is that friendly fire can be exploited, with players deliberately sabotaging their team.

[SuperLuigi64]

Tr0n said:

I'm not very keen on the idea of no friendly fire in structured PvP.

At least add a "hardcore" option when creating custom servers, with decreased health, increased damage to skills and friendly fire. It would make the game less "skill spammy" and more tactical, position aware. It would also make for a more interesting game, since players would die quicker.

Friendly fire is impossible. It conflicts with the skill combo design of the game. You can't use Whirling Defense to throw fire everywhere if the fire is killing you at the time.

[GhostBoy]

I don't see the merits of FF, but even for those who do, I doubt it's an easy thing to add. Certainly it goes beyond flicking a switch.

There are skills that damage enemies and heal allies at the same time. How would stuff like that work under FF? Even assuming some reasonable answer could be found, the underlying point is that it would mean going through each and every skill, and working out what their FF functionality should be.

If you are going to do that, I'd like to hear what postive things FF brings to the table that can't be achieved in the existing framework. Activating skills often is not inherently bad, and from what I can tell the more tactical skills (f.inst damage shields) already have cooldowns that place them among things to be used sparingly and at proper time. If players generally die quicker, you'd have to reconsider the capture timers for maps, or risk simply dragging out the game. Warriors would find it hard to build up adrenaline, curbing their ability to make use of their unique mechanic. Conditions builds would the less desirable, because they work slowly. The combo argument made above is also a good one.

You cannot easily make it "the same game, just with FF".

Edited by GhostBoy, 19 October 2011 - 12:35 PM.

[Malchior Devenholm]

Tr0n said:

It's just a preference, just like professions and races and weapons and armors are. You don't think you are spiting the community with enabling them to choose a race, are you?

The current trebs are easily way too Overpowered for tournament play. Since Anet talked about operating PvP via servers and allowing some features to be changed, I could see friendly fire trebs being enabled for tournaments.

[SunRoamer]

Jostedalsosten said:

I certainly hope there's destructable terrain on every map. There's no reason to remove that feature, just because you remove the trebuchets.

Well, I guess the destructible crates, windows etc will remain, however without a trebuchet there's no way to blow up a whole building or whatever. So it's only logical that in maps without the trebuchet, it will be impossible to alter the shape of the battlefield like that (you would have to allow players to blow up i.e. the clocktower with skills like meteor or whatnot. No, thanks ;))

[Craywulf]

Too high of risk for players causing trouble for friendly-fire. Common sense game design says it's better to leave friendly-fire out of the game.

As for SPvP maps, I certainly hope there are more destructible (at the very least interactive) environments besides Kyhlo.

[Geobardi]

Nice to read a really insteresting interview, thanks.

I'm a bit dissapointed with the nature feeling that the Grove has lost (i prefered the first footage of the Grove, it fees more alive, now the plants are like luminiscent plastic ones...), but, well, i will have to deal with it. I will look for the area around the Grove.

In PvP, if a dragon is flying over your head, spitting balls of fire, i'm pretty sure he will destroy some of the environment, and a few players in the process...

Edited by Geobardi, 19 October 2011 - 02:04 PM.

[Cloudpiercer]

I don't see them changing how trebs work, you sacrifice a teammate to man one and it can be destroyed, the only point where getting owned by one is a problem is the clock tower. The other 2 points you can literally see it coming from a mile away and you can dodge accordingly. If it did less damage or had friendly fire then it wouldn't be worth losing a teammate on the field to use it.

I think people who hate the treb will just migrate over to the other maps.

[Morcotulcon]

Jostedalsosten said:

I certainly hope there's destructable terrain on every map. There's no reason to remove that feature, just because you remove the trebuchets.

I hope so too. It's not a good idea to get rid of destructable terrain idea and make it Kyhlo-only feature. You can have a lot of other ways where this feature can become an additional advantage to the game objectives.

SunRoamer said:

Well, I guess the destructible crates, windows etc will remain, however without a trebuchet there's no way to blow up a whole building or whatever. So it's only logical that in maps without the trebuchet, it will be impossible to alter the shape of the battlefield like that (you would have to allow players to blow up i.e. the clocktower with skills like meteor or whatnot. No, thanks ;))

You have other ways of destroying whole buildings besides using a trebuchet. Don't forget that trebuchet is secondary. Examples:
1- Destroy the building pilars.
2- Put a building on fire.
3- bombs.

You can use destructible terrain for other purposes, like a secondary objective to destroy the enemy base where the Capture points are hidden. They have creativity enough to think about this, it's better than a dragon breathing fire (which is cool too).

Edited by Morcotulcon, 19 October 2011 - 02:19 PM.

[Alfthaton]

Jostedalsosten said:

I certainly hope there's destructable terrain on every map. There's no reason to remove that feature, just because you remove the trebuchets.

I feel the same way.

Blasting through a window to make a quick escape is one of the coolest things I've seen when looking at this game's PvP.

[Kattar]

Catapults and friendly fire related discussion is that way. ---------->

[Mordakai]

I wish they has asked about the level restriction on certain weapons, and if there is anyway to bypass it (at least with future characters).

[Ring]

Quote

For the sake of physical attraction, asura place much more importance on the ears, eyes, and shape of the head (larger head equals larger cranial capacity of course!) than anything else.

I want to see a filk of "Baby Got Back" discussing the finer points of attraction to the larger-than-average head circumference of asuran ladies.

[Rils]

Quote

We want each map we release to be completely unique. We feel that we can get a ton of variety out of our maps by changing the secondary objectives and mechanics. For example, we won’t be launching with another map with trebuchets and destroyable terrain; those things are reserved for the Battle of Kyhlo map. The other maps we are testing all have some very involved mechanics and unique playstyles in them...(snip)

I'm sure there will be equally fun and devastating mechanics in each of the other maps, besides trebs and destructible terrain. ANet has certainly proven their creativity by this point, oh ye of little faith... :) Each map will have it's gimick, and just play whichever one catches your fancy the most! No point getting worked up about it.

For me, I would enjoy (for instance) an underwater map where you could get your opponents trapped by giant clams for a second or two, or encase them in bubbles that float them to the surface, or other fun 3D mechanics like that. Ruined cities aren't really my thing - but that's why there's options. Can't wait to see what else they come up with!

Thanks OP for posting, nice clarification on skill learning and leveling.

[Vorsakan]

Excellent interview - I heartily approve of Mr. Flannum's reasoning in those answers. :cool:

SuperLuigi64 said:

Friendly fire is impossible. It conflicts with the skill combo design of the game. You can't use Whirling Defense to throw fire everywhere if the fire is killing you at the time.

^ Also: this +1 :D

[Glastium]

I find a violation between this article and http://www.guildwars...4&postcount=291. Which one is the latest?

[deathbyengineer]

oh i'm just glad that once you unlock skills you don't need to lvl them up i was really woried about that thank you for asking

[Khaal]

Glastium said:

I find a violation between this article and http://www.guildwars...4&postcount=291. Which one is the latest?

Violation probably isn't the right word, it's more like they are conflicting. Now, having said that, both the interview with Izzy where he states the same thing as this article and this article have come up after Regina's statement. It looks like conquest is the only structured PvP type at this time and that variety of play will be in the secondary objectives like the trebuche and dragon.

[Mordakai]

Glastium said:

I find a violation between this article and http://www.guildwars...4&postcount=291. Which one is the latest?

The word you are looking for is contradiction. ;)


And I would take Eric Flannum's word over a community spokesperson anyday of the week. It's possible the scope of PvP has changed since then. Or that Regina was simply misinformed. Keep in mind: Regina's comment was in August, and this is October.

[Asterai]

Enjoyable article, thank you!

Mordakai said:

I wish they has asked about the level restriction on certain weapons, and if there is anyway to bypass it (at least with future characters).

...Me too.

There are reasons not to put destructible terrain on everything:
1) It adds to the computational load of the map, which has an absolute upper limit based on the desired system reqs, and other features (the secondary objectives for a given map) should and do take higher priority.
2) Destroying a building without a trebuchet is impractical and in some cases approaches nonsensical. Sure, you can set some (wooden or thatched) buildings on fire (not that they'd go down quickly at all - wood takes hours to burn through, if you can get it to light in the first place), and you could break up small objects (barrels, etc.) with your weapons. Try destroying a stone building, or even a fire-resistant material like stucco over brick, which seems to be the Krytan preference (or the steel of the charr, or the wet living plants of the sylvari, or the carved stone of the asura). If you can actually knock that down with hand-held weapons, even by attacking primary supports like pillars, that building was seriously under code, as in nobody would live in a building that unsafe if they could help it at all.
3) Creating a variety of secondary mechanics will please a greater number of people. Destructible terrain is just one feature, and you can play it as much as you want by only joining Khylo matches. Some people (especially the crowd who want a war simulator) love it to pieces. A lot of people, with a variety of motivations, are entirely apathetic to it. Personally I think it's great that they made a map with destructible terrain, but have no need to see it anywhere else, because one map is enough to cut the novelty for me. I would rather they focused on expanding the options, as they are doing. And other people will love a few of those other options they come up with to pieces, whether it's because they like dodging dragons, or mounted combat, or convincing the natives to help their side, or leading a squadron into battle, or whatever other zany secondary goals/mechanics the team comes up with.

Hardcore servers have their place, I guess; I don't begrudge others their fun once I'm sure I'll get my own. So low health, high damage - if you want. I'm not sure that really improves the game, but your funeral. But "hardcore" won't and can't involve friendly fire. As others have pointed out, the skill design (cross-profession combos, simultaneously offensive/defensive skills) depends heavily on the fact that friendly fire does not exist. And more importantly, ANet is anti-griefing; if you can use it to deliberately give your own allies a bad day, it is not in their games.