Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * - - 18 votes

Is GW2's combat system a step backwards from GW1?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
249 replies to this topic

#1 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:00 AM

Continued from this post, which was off topic in its current thread: http://www.guildwars...90#entry2166336

View Posttypographie, on 19 February 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

I missed GW1's beta, but I played since a week or two after its release. ~6,500 hours, last I checked.

I had a great time in GW1, it remains one of my favorite games. But even way back, the combat was just not that varied or dynamic to allow for all this strategic depth some seem to remember. GW2 does that kind of combat much, much better, whatever other flaws it might (and in fact does) have.

Care to elaborate how GW2's combat system is so much better than GW1's? Because, I would argue the opposite.

I mean, you got rid of any real ability to design builds other than what the devleopers want you to have.

You can run through characters, which mean kiting is pretty much ineffective compared to what it used to be.

They added the ability to jump, but that doesn't help you in combat (that I am aware of).

They added the dodge mechanic, which isn't all that impressive.

They pretty much took away utility from the game altogether, no dedicated healing class, nothing like the previous mesmer class, even ranger is severely gimped in abilities from before.

So, how exactly is it SO much better? Sure, you may like it better, but to claim it as being SO much better seems to be a stretch.

Edited by El Duderino, 19 February 2013 - 03:06 AM.


#2 Fernling306

Fernling306

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1471 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:17 AM

Gw2 combat system was suppose to a basic system that anyone could get into, even non mmo players. I doubt even Anet would argue Gw2>Gw1.

#3 matsif

matsif

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1516 posts
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:36 AM

GW2's is more "active" in the sense that you have to dodge instead of tank.  Dodging by itself is more active than most PvE skill bars in GW1 that I played, as GW1 was pretty much spam 1-8 on cooldown/when you had the energy/adrenaline.

GW1 was more reactionary for some classes, especially as a monk or in PvP.  Knowing when to hit the interrupt or healing was very dependent on your reaction time.  GW1 had more skills, making the combat more diverse in that the player had more of a choice over what he wanted to do.  

I don't think it's a step back in the activity of combat, in fact I like the fact that you have to dodge.  But I miss having a bunch of professions to choose skills from.

#4 lmaonade

lmaonade

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1122 posts
  • Location:That one place with the thing
  • Guild Tag:[NGE]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:05 AM

it isn't a step backwards because it's a different entity altogether, they don't walk the same tangent

plus GW1's combat, and I mean strictly combat, is a relic of an old age, standstill combat RPG style. GW2's combat at least has a semblance of being more modern, ability to move while casting, no "mana" (besides initiative), etc.

If you're talking about designing builds, then yes it is a step backwards, they stripped their skill system of it's customization and added traits, which aren't adequate enough to replace what was taken away, which sucks hard because I loved designing builds and teams in GW1, it was half the fun for me.

yep jumping is useless, except for jumping puzzles of course, but it's still extremely limited in function.

Dodge is okay, it's not impressive sure but it definitely is an interesting mechanic and adds dynamic to combat.

However, I like that they took away dedicated healing classes, though sometimes I do miss the holy trinity, having everything spread out like this has it's perks. Teams are no longer synergized by class but rather by build, which allows groups to be able to substitute certain classes with others that are slightly different in functionality but still retains the same motif to builds teams that are varied but still equal in effectiveness (replacing 1 class with a control build with another class with a control build, they both serve the same general purpose, but bring different things to the table in the end). this would've been even better than it is now if GW2 had the proper customization, but unfortunately it doesn't.

Edited by lmaonade, 19 February 2013 - 04:06 AM.


#5 lazykoala

lazykoala

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 848 posts
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:23 AM

I wouldn't say step backwards, but it certainly is no upgrade imo. It is simpler and I guess more active in a more straightforward way. It lacks the complexity of other systems and I personally prefer a billion skills with less balance rather than just a few skills per weapon and better balance....and honestly it's not even that much more balanced anyway. I do like how they experimented with removing the traditional trinity and they did a pretty good job with it, but the traditional trinity can be great too when done well. The thing that still bugs me most is the whole downed system because it will never be fun to play in a crippled down state no matter how much they try to improve it.

#6 Charlie Dayman

Charlie Dayman

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 276 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:40 AM

I'd say it certainly feels more active which is good. Though I do miss the ability to swap out weapon skills for others. Would be interesting to see them allow players to change skills 3-5, although the balance would be tricky I imagine.

#7 Bryant Again

Bryant Again

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 895 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Profession:Warrior

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:51 AM

GW1 put a lot more emphasis on build creation, as such it was very open-ended with its customization. Of course, the cons with such a system are generally a lack of player direction (in regards to what constitutes a 'good build') and was frequently imbalanced. Also the gameplay was a lot more passive. Very few things could be cast on the run.

GW2 is quite a bit more active with most skills being able to be cast while moving, dodging, etc. but is quite a bit more rigid in regards to customization, and plays a bit more like a traditional MMO rather than GW1.

Different strokes for different folks, ultimately. I don't think folks are completely out of the way to be 'disappointed' with GW2's combat, but only because it deviates a lot from the prequel.

Personally, I'd like to see just a wee bit more customization with maybe a few more elite options, and maybe the possibility to swap out at least a weapon skill or two with something else. Otherwise I love them both.

Edited by Bryant Again, 19 February 2013 - 04:53 AM.


#8 Gli

Gli

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1026 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:00 AM

GW1 had a combat system that emphasized managing bars: health bars for healing, skill activation bars for interruption, (your own) energy bar.

GW2 is much more about watching what happens in the game instead of the GUI.

I prefer GW2, but is it better? Hard to answer, seems like an apples - oranges thing.

#9 NerfHerder

NerfHerder

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:17 AM

More like a side step. Its not a better or worse scenario, it's personal taste. The open world and AI improvements wont allow for most GW combat mechanics. No big instanced mobs means not much need to pull and the AI is intuitive enough to go around a corner, so no corner blocking. Of course, I like positioning over tanking. So that feels like a step forward to me. And jumping is useful sometimes in combat. I often use it to jump on to ledges or over objects to get a positional advantage I wouldnt otherwise have.

#10 Specialz

Specialz

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3100 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:49 AM

Subjective opinion is subjective. There is no factual way to prove it is better all you will get is people that like guild wars 1 supposedly deep combat system with tinted glasses syndrome talk about how awesome, it was 7 years ago. Then you have people who enjoy a more active and less boring combat system.

Personally, any game where you press a melee skill and the character auto follows isn't really fun.

#11 Juanele

Juanele

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1743 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:56 AM

Indeed it is all subjective. For me I much prefer GW2's combat. I only wish I had more of a skill selection (if they had given us choices of skills to select for our weapons, that would have been perfect I think).

#12 Perm Shadow Form

Perm Shadow Form

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:58 AM

GW2 combat is much more active and that's about it, there's nothing more skillful in GW2's combat.
If thats what they tried to achieve, they did it, but they also dumbed the game down for players who can't spend 15 minutes to create their own skill bar or read skills and are analphabets.

#13 Heart Collector

Heart Collector

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 932 posts
  • Location:Athens, Greece

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:13 AM

In my opinion.

The good

- Active combat
- Evading/dodging is crucial
- Fun skills with multiple functions/"phases" (i.e. the Engis shield abilities)
- The tab targeting is kind of "hidden" since the game does use soft targeting
- Feels good and meaty
- Easy to get into
- No holy trinity \o/
- I like the general concept of different skills per weapon
- Animations are quite smooth and mostly feel adequately fluid
- Trait system feels less restrictive than the typical talent tree
- Few abilities at any given time allows for more convenient and comfy keybinding

The meh

- Can't customize the skills except through traits (unlike say Path of Exile) - and even then few skills change dramatically
- Can't choose between more weapon skills (like we can with utilities)
- Strange, often botched targeting
- I would have preferred a reticule, mouse binds and not having to click to turn, TERA style
- Very boring auto-attack
- No active blocking except for specific skills on CD
- In big battles, the nuances of the combat system get kind of "lost"
- Small "chargeups" on some skills that momentarily root you - very noticable on the Thiefs Heartseeker and Death Blossom for example, and annoying especially in these cases as they're all about movement, and the chargeup cuts into the flow of combat
- Few abilities at any given time combined with the drab, non skill based autoattack makes it feel a bit lacking

All in all, I find the combat system to be fast and fun, if a bit too simple at times and lacking in customization. It seems to me like a hybrid of traditional MMO combat and skill based action combat, with all the positives and negatives it entails. I like it well enough but it could use some tweaking :)

#14 FoxBat

FoxBat

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 3975 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:35 AM

When people say "combat system" they aren't talking about selecting skills. They're talking about how you actually use the skills you've got. You could dump full skill customization on GW2 and the combat system wouldn't change.

As far as PvE goes, trying out crazy builds in GW1 was pretty much my main driving factor. In other words, very little was enjoyable to actually play once the novelty of it wore off. Maybe monking for a not top-notch party, but the gradual power creep of passive defense took alot out of that aspect of the game.

As for sPvP, well I think there's a reason it is so split-happy and focused on small fights. Because larger battles are cluster****s rather than the interlocking interdependency of GW1 classes, plus more importantly ally prot skills are what simply training a single target not always the optimal strategy. The small-scale battle in GW2 is still plenty skillful, there's just less feeling of playing together as a full team.

I think healing power has been over-nerfed, and would be better served if it could be like PvE "tanking". (Arguably sub-optimal, but you can still do it, and it makes life for the party easier if slower.) But on the other hand I'm very glad parties do not have to wait for monks to show up to get going. If roles let you maximize efficiency while not being required to simply complete content, I think that would be ideal. I guess we have that a little in the CoF 4 war/mez build, but there's just too much focus on pure DPS at the moment.

#15 Sans

Sans

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 914 posts
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:58 AM

The dodge mechanic makes it great.
I try to dodge in every game i play now....

Edited by Sans, 19 February 2013 - 07:59 AM.


#16 Xsiriss

Xsiriss

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 555 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:00 AM

They've basically tried to make it more moba-esque in order to have that e-sport appeal, and whilst it does feel more active it does get old. Customisation and variety are hugely important factors, and frankly 7 lvl80's doesn't provide enough when you're doing the same content and doing similar min-maxing in order to achieve DPS.

Another sort of related topic is the fact that whilst defense is largely active and requires player skill, offense does not. It seems a bit odd and as people have realised it favours stacking of raw damage stats, not skill, when it comes to offense. To quote a friend of mine that quit, GW2 is a great skeleton of a game but there's not much else to it.

#17 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4791 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:36 AM

View Postmatsif, on 19 February 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

GW1 was more reactionary for some classes, especially as a monk or in PvP.  Knowing when to hit the interrupt or healing was very dependent on your reaction time.  GW1 had more skills, making the combat more diverse in that the player had more of a choice over what he wanted to do.  
If you played monk by pushing up red bars you were doing it wrong, any good monk could play with the party window turned off. And good interrupting is not just about reaction but actually more about prediction, quick decision making, and the ability to understand teamwide effects of skills on the fly.

View Postlmaonade, on 19 February 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

plus GW1's combat, and I mean strictly combat, is a relic of an old age, standstill combat RPG style. GW2's combat at least has a semblance of being more modern, ability to move while casting, no "mana" (besides initiative), etc.
The lack of mana is something I at first glance like, but then again mana represents something else. A lot of well designed skills in GW1 had a recharge time far shorter than the time it took to regenerate that much mana, meaning that these skills presented a choice: either spam like hell, having a short burst of high output followed by a long time of recharging, or spread out the use and last longer. GW2's mechanics doesn't give that choice.

View PostGli, on 19 February 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

GW2 is much more about watching what happens in the game instead of the GUI.
That's what the hype said, but I actually find myself looking at the UI more than I did in GW1.

#18 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:43 AM

Why compare apple to oranges?
The combats of GW1 and GW2 is not even remotely related to each other and both fill different purposes.

GW1 combat was quite simplistic in my opinion, especially with the addition of overpowered PvE skills and con sets. Just standing around pressing the same few skills over and over and over and over again until the area is clear is rather boring in my eyes.

GW2 on the other hand actually require some kind of thinking and active playing in order to succeed.

#19 Krazzar

Krazzar

    Legend of the Norn

  • Members
  • 7987 posts
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:50 AM

GW2 does have a serious problem when it comes to combat that is set in the fundamental nature of pacing and second-by-second activity compared to GW1. The complexity of the game itself is misleading as it is easy to create builds that simply work, but there is plenty of work that can be done to find builds that work better with your own style, that being a subjective best. The nature of content design, especially with dungeons, is somewhat limited, opening up the game to some build wars, but overall GW2 has remained build wars free. Most importantly, with the altered pace of combat, the inability to control the frequency of combat due to events, and lack of AI sleddogs, it has become impossible to do something else, like actively watch TV, actively research, write a paper, make a sandwich, eat said sandwich, wash the dishes after eating aforementioned sandwich while "playing".


View Postraspberry jam, on 19 February 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Spoiler

You're good at creating taglines. Too bad that was never necessary. Apply build, hit 1-8, win. Sure, there's timing, you have to set a target, and have an intelligence level above that of the common groundhog, but that's true of most games, including GW2.

So you want two cooldowns instead of one, kinda like skill cooldowns, weapon swap/attunement cooldowns, and special ability/pet swap cooldowns. The mechanic is still there, in fact it has been expanded. If you play with just one skill set you're doing it wrong.

Personal anecdotes, the redheaded step-child of evidence. Even more compelling when it has to do with personal activity, a most objective topic.

Edited by Krazzar, 19 February 2013 - 08:55 AM.


#20 Minion

Minion

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 759 posts
  • Location:moi preciouss council house
  • Guild Tag:[Fäp]
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:56 AM

View Postmatsif, on 19 February 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

GW2's is more "active" in the sense that you have to dodge instead of tank.  Dodging by itself is more active than most PvE skill bars in GW1 that I played, as GW1 was pretty much spam 1-8 on cooldown/when you had the energy/adrenaline.

GW1 was more reactionary for some classes, especially as a monk or in PvP.  Knowing when to hit the interrupt or healing was very dependent on your reaction time.  GW1 had more skills, making the combat more diverse in that the player had more of a choice over what he wanted to do.  


highlighted for wtf and you're wrong, so so very wrong. Unless you made a typo and meant GW2 is pretty much just spam all skills on recharge... I don't care how many hours you played of Guild Wars, I put over 11k hours in, playing all formats (albeit GvG was shortlived for me and I only participated in a few HA matches), but you cannot say GW2 is not reactionary.

Dodging is reactionary. That should be obvious. Tanking is actually less reactionary, because you can set yourself up to take less damage so you can enter a situation with an upper hand, as opposed to the reactionary method where you must be alert and ready to dodge to avoid damage. This should be obvious. Infact, Guild Wars had reactive skills too, and they were terrible. Empathy, Backfire and Spiteful Spirit were cookie cutter. Anet probably recognised this love for reactive skills and decided to create a whole new game and philosophy based on the idea of reactive skills and gameplay. They then told everyone they were doing the complete opposite of that and, using make-up sticks, their twisted 180º logic fooled you all. Because no one wants to really play a reactionary game; it sounds derogatory almost.

Anyway, I should just refer you to a previous rant post of mine from a while ago when this topic cropped up, but the crux is there's no skill involved and it's far more reactionary. Not having the option to pre-prot, buff your team's damage in any meaningful way or apply protection easily. Anet were careful this time to limit how we can deal and absorb damage; there are no unique damage types, melee/elemental buffs, support roles or true synergies in teams.

All this makes the combat system of GW2 shallow and boring. Go play Guild Wars again, relive the good times and play with seven pugs :D

Edited by unraveled, 19 February 2013 - 08:12 PM.
Leave the font size alone or you'll go blind.


#21 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4791 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:56 AM

View PostKrazzar, on 19 February 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

The nature of content design, especially with dungeons, is somewhat limited, opening up the game to some build wars, but overall GW2 has remained build wars free.
(...)
You're good at creating taglines. Too bad that was never necessary. Apply build, hit 1-8, win. Sure, there's timing, you have to set a target, and have an intelligence level above that of the common groundhog, but that's true of most games, including GW2.

So you want two cooldowns instead of one, kinda like skill cooldowns, weapon swap/attunement cooldowns, and special ability/pet swap cooldowns. The mechanic is still there, in fact it has been expanded. If you play with just one skill set you're doing it wrong.

Personal anecdotes, the redheaded step-child of evidence. Even more compelling when it has to do with personal activity, a most objective topic.
I've always taken the term "build wars" to mean two PvP teams trying to outbuild each other. This is the first time I realized that it's a pun on "guild wars". Haha.

Anyway, I don't see what you mean, since you can complete the storyline as well as most dungeons by spamming all skills on recharge and almost always (I'd say 90% of cases) attacking the nearest enemy. You might call that a personal anecdote since I've done it, but you could try it yourself too: it's a fact, if I can do it, so can  you. While there are some parts that can't be played like that, there were such parts in GW1 too.

No, I don't want two cooldowns of the same kind, I want multiple cooldowns of different kinds. For example, for your arbitrary skill, GW1 had potentially four (skill recharge, energy cap, exhaustion, disabled timer) cooldowns, not even counting adrenaline or self-imposed cooldowns such as waiting out a Diversion, or the fact that you could manipulate some of said cooldowns using your gear. The lack of a resource management system unfortunately means that GW2 lacks a lot of complexity that otherwise could have brought depth to the game. Add in the fact that you can use skills while you move (which removes the choice between using a skill and moving), as well as stackable conditions and control-removing abilities such as Fear, and you're left with something quite shallow.

#22 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:13 AM

Gw1 had unparalleled customizability and gave you a lot of flexibility to create your own build but then the price for that is you had very limited combat flexibility. Gw2 is the opposite.

Let me try to explain with an analogy with real life. lets take a screw driver
Gw1 had specialized skill like turn screw, bash glass, bash head, stab person, stab animal, stab golem, scratch glass etc.. etc.. you'd have a skill that represents perhaps every possible action you can do with a screw driver and you had to pick 8 and stick with those 8. Ergo if I wanted to bash a glass window but didnt pick the skill though luck cant do anything about it.

Gw2 has generic skill like Pierce attack, bash attack, fix, scratch, throw. Depending how you use your generic skills you can achieve more or less the same effect you could with gw1 specialized skill IE if I use Pierce attack on a person it would be just like the stab person, if i do it on an animal it would be the same as stab animal etc.. There might be some specialized skills that arent replicated but for the most part my screw driver weapon set could allow me to do most of what all the specialized skills in gw1 allowed but without limiting me to pick 8.

The downside to that is that people find the simplification boring personally I find it liberating. I just hate the feeling in any game when I end up in a situation where I would need skill A, my character would know it but I cannot use it because I didnt pick it. I love the situational system gw2 has implemented. I can see whats going on around me and I always have the tools to react thats great.

gw1 had amazing customizability that gw2 doesnt come close but gw2 provides a freedom in combat that gw1 just didnt have.

#23 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3259 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 10:33 AM

I absolutely adore the ability to activate skills on the move and for a time I actually thought that GW2 basically killed all games that rooted you in place for skill activation. It was such a breath of fresh air.
But then came the realization that activating skills on the move really doesn't matter, because you are still stuck in the same location for ages because shit takes forever to kill. All the interesting twists are negated by the fact that GW2's open world should have been a party-based game - and it's utterly boring as a single-player game. And then the dungeons, which are party-based content, seem to operate under the same rule - sure, you have 5 folks, but it seems like the foes there aren't balanced for 5 folks, but rather 10 or 15 folks because you are once again stuck in locations forever.
What you end up doing with skills is just shockingly boring in GW2.

As for the skills themselves, not only are most completely bland in design, they are additionally hurt by the insanely long recharges (looking at D3, which contains a lot of skills built on the same ideas, I can't remember a single skills that I didn't, not only enjoy more in D3, but the D3 version is ACTUALLY amazing to use). It's absolutely shocking that we came from a game that gave me some of my favourite classes of all times (or at least favourite versions of an archetype) and ended with a sequel that has 8 utterly bland classes.

#24 ErraticFaith

ErraticFaith

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:04 AM

My perspective is an odd one since I didnt actually play the games in the traditional order. Nor did I really get that far with gw1 now that its fairly old in comparison.

One thing I did notice though, abeit in my short experience, was that it was quite backwards for me. I expected guildwars 2 to naturally be far better than the first and found myself really suprised that its anything but. Gw2 is just a pile of crap to be blunt.

I'm purely a PvP gamer, came from Aion; which I've played since it launched; to try out the so called 'superior pvp' in gw2.
I had high hopes but, like most of my friends, im back on aion servers.

If time frame/ratio had been different. If gw1 would have been the game they released now (a far more up to date version ofc) then most likely we would have stayed and had some really fun pvp. Gw2 was ok for a while, yet compared to any traditional mmo it takes virtually no playing ability and is just drivel as a serious pvp game. Its really nice that it caters for a new crowd and it has its pve quirks but 'IMO' comparing it to gw1 is insulting (and thats from someone who only tried gw1 for a week or so via a kind friend)  Months wasted here in failwars2...pretty much sums it up.

Edited by ErraticFaith, 19 February 2013 - 11:05 AM.


#25 Dirame

Dirame

    Golem Rider

  • Community Contributors
  • 2249 posts
  • Server:Vabbi

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:13 AM

View Postraspberry jam, on 19 February 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

That's what the hype said, but I actually find myself looking at the UI more than I did in GW1.

For me, on all classes, I look at the fight more often than I do my skill bar because you've got to know what's going on else you'll get backstabbed and be too slow to react.

In GW1, I actually spent more time watching positioning and cast times 'cos I most played a Dwarven Battle Stance Warrior. I could rip through melee characters without looking at action bars but casters? You've got to know the second they start casting and that's where GW2 turns things around. If I was playing such a build in GW2, I'd have to spend more time watching for animations rather than casting bars whilst sticking close to the enemy.

#26 Krazzar

Krazzar

    Legend of the Norn

  • Members
  • 7987 posts
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:15 AM

View PostErraticFaith, on 19 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

My perspective is an odd one since I didnt actually play the games in the traditional order. Nor did I really get that far with gw1 now that its fairly old in comparison.

One thing I did notice though, abeit in my short experience, was that it was quite backwards for me. I expected guildwars 2 to naturally be far better than the first and found myself really suprised that its anything but. Gw2 is just a pile of crap to be blunt.

I'm purely a PvP gamer, came from Aion; which I've played since it launched; to try out the so called 'superior pvp' in gw2.
I had high hopes but, like most of my friends, im back on aion servers.

If time frame/ratio had been different. If gw1 would have been the game they released now (a far more up to date version ofc) then most likely we would have stayed and had some really fun pvp. Gw2 was ok for a while, yet compared to any traditional mmo it takes virtually no playing ability and is just drivel as a serious pvp game. Its really nice that it caters for a new crowd and it has its pve quirks but 'IMO' comparing it to gw1 is insulting (and thats from someone who only tried gw1 for a week or so via a kind friend)  Months wasted here in failwars2...pretty much sums it up.

PvP is rather sparse in GW2. It's funny to see the tables turn as they did. GW1 was originally a PvP-only game with a few tutorial missions to test builds. The centerpiece of GW1 was supposed to be a type of WvW, but they couldn't make it work and their art shift sent them off course, so they created some PvE content to compete with WoW. Without that content GW2 probably wouldn't have come to be, GW1 would have died off and Anet would have disbanded. As time went on Anet released more PvE content for GW1 because it's what people called for, and they continually tried to get the PvP side to pick up, but it never seemed to gain any ground. Over 7 years the message was clear to Anet, PvE sells and PvP smells, so GW2 was created with a heavy focus on PvE. They plan to expand PvP in GW2, but I don't know if it will ever be like GW1 because it was not built completely around PvP as GW1 originally was.

Funny, though, GW1's PvE didn't work too well because it was founded completely on PvP while GW2's PvP isn't working too well because it is founded in PvE. WvW is a sort of neutral entity, it has its own problems that leads me to believe GW1 would have died off if it actually relied on it as originally planned.

Edited by Krazzar, 19 February 2013 - 11:17 AM.


#27 Dirame

Dirame

    Golem Rider

  • Community Contributors
  • 2249 posts
  • Server:Vabbi

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:16 AM

View PostErraticFaith, on 19 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

My perspective is an odd one since I didnt actually play the games in the traditional order. Nor did I really get that far with gw1 now that its fairly old in comparison.

One thing I did notice though, abeit in my short experience, was that it was quite backwards for me. I expected guildwars 2 to naturally be far better than the first and found myself really suprised that its anything but. Gw2 is just a pile of crap to be blunt.

-- snip --

I'd really like to know what your grievance is with GW2 PvP compared to GW1. What exactly is missing in GW2 PvP for you?

View PostKrazzar, on 19 February 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

PvP is rather sparse in GW2. It's funny to see the tables turn as they did. GW1 was originally a PvP-only game with a few tutorial missions to test builds. The centerpiece of GW1 was supposed to be a type of WvW, but they couldn't make it work and their art shift sent them off course, so they created some PvE content to compete with WoW. Without that content GW2 probably wouldn't have come to be, GW1 would have died off and Anet would have disbanded. As time went on Anet released more PvE content for GW1 because it's what people called for, and they continually tried to get the PvP side to pick up, but it never seemed to gain any ground. Over 7 years the message was clear to Anet, PvE sells and PvP smells, so GW2 was created with a heavy focus on PvE. They plan to expand PvP in GW2, but I don't know if it will ever be like GW1 because it was not built completely around PvP as GW1 originally was.

Funny, though, GW1's PvE didn't work too well because it was founded completely on PvP while GW2's PvP isn't working too well because it is founded in PvE. WvW is a sort of neutral entity, it has its own problems that leads me to believe GW1 would have died off if it actually relied on it as originally planned.

I really don't get all this GW2 hate, it makes no sense to someone who loved and adored GW1 for it's build wars metagame and loves GW2 for almost the same reason. Yes, GW2 has less of it but not none of it.
In fact, GW2 feels less like a chore because of the flexibility it allows players whilst in combat and possibly some of you guys consider this "chore" that was in GW1 to be "more depth". I could say, to each his own but no one's gonna listen anyway.

I loved GW1 for what it was but, I'm not going to compare to GW2 because I feel that would be a disservice to both games. They are so different that similarities only come in the most minute of details.

Edited by unraveled, 19 February 2013 - 08:35 PM.


#28 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4791 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:43 AM

View PostDirame, on 19 February 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

For me, on all classes, I look at the fight more often than I do my skill bar because you've got to know what's going on else you'll get backstabbed and be too slow to react.

In GW1, I actually spent more time watching positioning and cast times 'cos I most played a Dwarven Battle Stance Warrior. I could rip through melee characters without looking at action bars but casters? You've got to know the second they start casting and that's where GW2 turns things around. If I was playing such a build in GW2, I'd have to spend more time watching for animations rather than casting bars whilst sticking close to the enemy.
Well true, cast bar is one thing that you looked at in GW1. But this was UI as it is supposed to be: it amplifies the information that you get from watching the fight.
If you were playing that build in GW2 you'd either be useless or overpowered.

#29 Dirame

Dirame

    Golem Rider

  • Community Contributors
  • 2249 posts
  • Server:Vabbi

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

View PostMinion, on 19 February 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

highlighted for wtf and you're wrong, so so very wrong. Unless you made a typo and meant GW2 is pretty much just spam all skills on recharge... I don't care how many hours you played of Guild Wars, I put over 11k hours in, playing all formats (albeit GvG was shortlived for me and I only participated in a few HA matches), but you cannot say GW2 is not reactionary.

Dodging is reactionary. That should be obvious. Tanking is actually less reactionary, because you can set yourself up to take less damage so you can enter a situation with an upper hand, as opposed to the reactionary method where you must be alert and ready to dodge to avoid damage. This should be obvious. Infact, Guild Wars had reactive skills too, and they were terrible. Empathy, Backfire and Spiteful Spirit were cookie cutter. Anet probably recognised this love for reactive skills and decided to create a whole new game and philosophy based on the idea of reactive skills and gameplay. They then told everyone they were doing the complete opposite of that and, using make-up sticks, their twisted 180º logic fooled you all. Because no one wants to really play a reactionary game; it sounds derogatory almost.

Anyway, I should just refer you to a previous rant post of mine from a while ago when this topic cropped up, but the crux is there's no skill involved and it's far more reactionary. Not having the option to pre-prot, buff your team's damage in any meaningful way or apply protection easily. Anet were careful this time to limit how we can deal and absorb damage; there are no unique damage types, melee/elemental buffs, support roles or true synergies in teams.

All this makes the combat system of GW2 shallow and boring. Go play Guild Wars again, relive the good times and play with seven pugs :D

There are no true synergies in teams because people either haven't woken up to the fact that they are there and they can work or they just like running round solo punching things in the face. Possibly because that's part of GW2's gameplay.

There are plenty of synergies within the game, I even dedicated a whole google document to forming and writing down synergies that could be exploited within teams but no one's going to jump on that bandwagon unless someone shows them it's the most effective way to play.

It probably took time for people to figure out the synergies in GW1 as well, so shooting the game down because the early adopters haven't really started opening their minds to certain synergetic specs seems like more of a jab at GW2 not giving you a nostalgic feeling rather than it not being like GW1.

And GW2 combat is both reactive and proactive. Guardian Aegis is a good example of both, Buffs before you enter a fight are a good example of proactive combat, stuns, stability, cloaking, all can be both reactive and proactive so labelling it as just one thing is just selling it short. Anet probably made that mistake as well.

Edited by unraveled, 19 February 2013 - 08:36 PM.
Fixed font size.


#30 Geralt Romalion

Geralt Romalion

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:45 AM

I haven't read most replies, so if I say weird things you are allowed to correct/butcher me.

For one, I do not think you should compare the combat of GW1 and Gw2.
This because they are two entirely different games with different mechanics,
Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Guild Wars 1 allowed for a deep amount of strategy, since you could pick every skill on your bar, and those of your heroes.
This allowed for a massive amount of theorycrafting, especially with over 1000 skills in the game.
Ignoring solo builds, the GW1 combat was not really about how YOU performed, but how YOUR TEAM performed.
The combat itself however was pretty basic, and sometimes boring.
For me this was countered by the hexes and enchantment system, allowing for various effects adding massive strategic depth.
The last few years of GW it steered away from its purpose, since several buffs allowed you to pull over 30 mobs and beat the crap out of them without a single death.
Before that it was great, since not only did you need to plan encounters, you also had to micro your skills, hero skills/party skills, positioning, but also what the enemy was doing.

Guild Wars 2 reduced the amount of skills and locked 5 of them on your bar, in order to optimise efficieny buildwise.
While I agree that GW1 became a bit like magic: the gathering with a gazillion skills, making it easy to create bad builds, it also really simplified the game.
We do no longer have enchantments or hexes with their respective effects, everything is reduced to boons and conditions.
The combat is more active and flashy, and the dodge mechanic is a great addition, but I do miss GW1's strategic planning of battle's, and the rewarding feel if you built your team in such a way you got through that hard encounter.

If anything, I would love a mix of the two.
The dodge and actionbased power of Gw2, combined with the strategic depth and free usage of every skill slot on your bar from GW1.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users