249 replies to this topic

[Barbieslayer]

The best times for me when playing GW1 was standing around in an out-post or Random Arena looking at skills figuring what I wanted to try and do, and how it would work, and then seeing if what I thought was accurate or feasible worked.  The actual playing of the game was only fun because you were right and got through content and recived rewards based on time thinking.

GW2 doesn't allow for great wodges of time to be spent mulling over attribute choices and ways you could play, over just deciding on something and seeing how it works for you.  It allows people to just log-in and play.

I suspect that the reason alot of people think there is no choice is because they aren't being given any by people who create and share builds, and how people think of "min/maxing" misses the point alot of the time.  You decide what you want to do and how you want to apply it, and how it works for you is dependant on how you play.  There is no peer pressure as such to run a certain way and exclude whole build types based on the idea they are usless to those that just borrow other peoples ideas on how they played the game anyway.

The actual combat is totaly different, and I'd say, in the year 2013 of the Roman calander, that GW2 is better for me, though if it had a bit more depth I wouldn't complain as long as it didn't change what makes Gw2 different from Gw1.  I don't need content gated by players and their attitudes, when I'm noramlly as capable as them, if not more so.  Nor do I want to feel like I'm swimming upstream in a river of stupidity.  And I definatly don't want to be the cause of another nerf to elementalists because of Pve content...  "I can do 5 meteor showers!!"..."Oh, never mind..."...  I still blame the monk that had nothing to do other than to watch me, for that one...  Now who's laughing..

[Doctor Overlord]

Silent The Legend, on 19 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

"Lets finish this freaking Factions campaign once for all. And who the hell cares about builds and stuff, its PvE, LOLZ"

You ignored the basic foundation of the game and you got beaten.  Ignoring builds in GW1 is like not using combos in a console fighting game.  It doesn't make the game (or the PvE content) challenging if you are ignoring the basics of it.  

Ritualist, on 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Come on, implementing "WoW"-rules into GW2 made it a MUCH safer game that it would have been had it been GW1 2.0.
I mean, the simple fact that GW1 isn't the GW we fell in love with years ago should tell you what's safe and easy.

Implementing things you haven't done before is always riskier than doing what you know.  

That was one of the flaws of SWTOR where Bioware fell back too heavily on what they knew (storytelling).  In fact they're are also an example of failing to successfully copy those "WoW"-rules you mention, which were the things that Bioware had no experience in doing. Not surprisingly, the storytelling ended up regraded as one of the better parts of the game, while the mistakes with the rest resulted in all the issues that put the game where it is.

So you say GW1 is no longer the GW you liked, that means you haven't liked Guild Wars for what, 5-7 years?   Forgive me for asking but why are you still following anything ArenaNet is doing when they clearly are not making you happy?  I move on from companies that disappoint me.   I don't bother posting on Mythic boards saying how they should make WAR more like DAOC because I know that's not going to happen.

And like it or not, ArenaNet is continuing to be successful (unlike Mythic) so it's even more unlikely they're going to change what they're doing since it seems to be working well for them.

Edited by Doctor Overlord, 19 February 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[El Duderino]

Barbieslayer, on 19 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

The best times for me when playing GW1 was standing around in an out-post or Random Arena looking at skills figuring what I wanted to try and do, and how it would work, and then seeing if what I thought was accurate or feasible worked.  The actual playing of the game was only fun because you were right and got through content and recived rewards based on time thinking.

GW2 doesn't allow for great wodges of time to be spent mulling over attribute choices and ways you could play, over just deciding on something and seeing how it works for you.  It allows people to just log-in and play.

I suspect that the reason alot of people think there is no choice is because they aren't being given any by people who create and share builds, and how people think of "min/maxing" misses the point alot of the time.  You decide what you want to do and how you want to apply it, and how it works for you is dependant on how you play.  There is no peer pressure as such to run a certain way and exclude whole build types based on the idea they are usless to those that just borrow other peoples ideas on how they played the game anyway.

The actual combat is totaly different, and I'd say, in the year 2013 of the Roman calander, that GW2 is better for me, though if it had a bit more depth I wouldn't complain as long as it didn't change what makes Gw2 different from Gw1.  I don't need content gated by players and their attitudes, when I'm noramlly as capable as them, if not more so.  Nor do I want to feel like I'm swimming upstream in a river of stupidity.  And I definatly don't want to be the cause of another nerf to elementalists because of Pve content...  "I can do 5 meteor showers!!"..."Oh, never mind..."...  I still blame the monk that had nothing to do other than to watch me, for that one...  Now who's laughing..

You can't avoid what you dislike. It is already happening is GW2, and will continue to happen. It is the nature of MMO's.

Here are threads to prove it:

http://www.guildwars...ess-of-classes/

http://www.guildwars...fractals-wrong/

It will continue too, as certain areas get harder or more rewarding. It's the nature of the beast.

[Ritualist]

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Implementing things you haven't done before is always riskier than doing what you know.  

Sadly, GW2 is GWEN expanded.
I didn't buy GWEN.

[Elcee]

Silent The Legend, on 19 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

First of all, I would like to point out that GW1's PvP was the most difficult PvP ever period. And this should tell you something.

But, if youre not convinced, I shall tell you a story...

I've always been a PvP player(Did a bit of PvE at the beginning, then I jumped in PvP). So, one day I say: "Lets finish this freaking Factions campaign once for all. And who the hell cares about builds and stuff, its PvE, LOLZ". Raisu Palace. I got roflstomped. Then I got roflstomped again. Then I had to ask a friend if he could complete the mission for me. For instance, if you dont care about the battle you get spiked in two seconds, and it wasnt even an HM dungeon or something. Even though I was pretty good at PvP I always had big big problems in PvE.

But, btw, cool story.

This is actually a pretty common experience. I only did HA when my friends asked me to(I only got to r5) but whenever my PvP friends would go into higher-end PvE they'd get rolled. This made no sense at all and yet it would happen. A couple of them would often say "Why are PvPers so bad at PvE?!".One time a bunch of them went with me to get obby armor on my Warrior and they wanted to finish FoW afterwards. Pretty much had to bail them out of blowing up to the area with Mahgo Hydras several times while here trying to figure out how in the HELL a group of r9-r12s are getting blown up by PvE.

Edited by Elcee, 19 February 2013 - 07:49 PM.

[Doctor Overlord]

Barbieslayer, on 19 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

The best times for me when playing GW1 was standing around in an out-post or Random Arena looking at skills figuring what I wanted to try and do, and how it would work, and then seeing if what I thought was accurate or feasible worked.  The actual playing of the game was only fun because you were right and got through content and recived rewards based on time thinking.

That is a very concise way of putting it.   The PvE combat was more of a method to test your builds.  If the builds worked, you were rewarded.  If they didn't, you get stomped.

I always found it odd in GW1 how combat could become trivial if you found the right build. I was used to games where you needed to develop a skill at it but GW1 rewarded people more for creating builds.   I can see how that might be appealing to some but it did make combat feel more of an intellectual exercise than a clash of swords.

Ritualist, on 19 February 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Sadly, GW2 is GWEN expanded.
I didn't buy GWEN.?

So you haven't been happy with GW for that long?   And you really believe ArenaNet would consider reverting back to systems from more than 6 years ago at this point? If GW2 had been a financial failure I might see making the argument, but the NCSoft quarterly report showed that didn't turn out to be the case.

Edited by Doctor Overlord, 19 February 2013 - 07:59 PM.

[El Duderino]

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Implementing things you haven't done before is always riskier than doing what you know.

Not true. Just because you haven't done something, doesn't mean that doing it is inherently risky - especially if it has been proven NOT to be risky by others. If you need specific examples, I will be happy to provide them, but I hope you get the point.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

That was one of the flaws of SWTOR where Bioware fell back too heavily on what they knew (storytelling).  In fact they're are also an example of failing to successfully copy those "WoW"-rules you mention. While the storytelling is actually regraded as one of the better parts of the game, the mistakes with the rest resulted in all the issues that put the game where it is.

SWOTR is a bad example. It is not based on a game that was as popular as Guild Wars 1.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

So you say GW1 is not the GW you like, so you haven't liked Guild Wars for what, 6-7 years?   Forgive me for asking but why are you still following anything ArenaNet is doing when they clearly are not making you happy?  I move on from companies that disappoint me.   I don't bother posting on Mythic boards saying how they should make WAR more like DAOC because I know that's not going to happen.

Because, they said (and I quote):

"Guild Wars 2 takes everything you love about Guild Wars 1 and puts it into a persistent world that's got more active combat, a fully-branching, personalized storyline, a new event system to get people playing together, and still no monthly fees."
Source: http://wiki.guildwar...nifesto_trailer

I'm so sick of people saying why play Guild Wars 2 if you played Guild Wars 1 and expect it to be similar. If you don't already know the answer to that question, then you haven't thought about it long enough.

Why WOULDN'T they be similar???

Also, isn't comparing WAR not being similar to DAOC a little bit different than comparing GW1's similarities to GW2's? Maybe just a little??

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

And like it or not, ArenaNet is continuing to be successful (unlike Mythic) so it's even more unlikely they're going to change what they're doing since it seems to be working well for them.

Ah, such a paradoxical statement. They already DID change what they did in GW1 when they made GW2 - so they are actually more likely to change what they are doing as they have a track record for making changes as opposed to not making changes.

Again, we aren't talking about Mythic - why you bring them up does not help your argument. There is no analogy that makes sense talking about Mythic vs. Guild Wars.

Mythic doesn't have a game that has even been close to Guild War's success (see: http://en.wikipedia...._PC_video_games)

Furthermore, Mythic does not have game that follows on the successes of a previous game WITH THE SAME NAME.

(Before you bring up Wrath of Heroes, it doesn't count as it is a MOBA and not an MMO, so they were inherently different TYPES of games from the onset).

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

That is a very concise way of putting it.   The PvE combat was more of a method to test your builds.  If the builds worked, you were rewarded.  If they didn't, you get stomped.

I always found it odd in GW1 how combat could become trivial if you found the right build. I was used to games where you needed to develop a skill at it but GW1 rewarded people more for creating builds.   I can see how that might be appealing to some but it did make combat feel more of an intellectual exercise than a clash of swords.

I would disagree. Examples would be beneficial. In fact, I would be willing to bet anything outside of DoA, I can find a group to beat it without using the suggested "best build".

Also, I do base most of my experiences on the fact that I mostly PvP'ed. Which in GW2 is just a zerg fest devoid of any real skills or builds that matter.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

So you haven't been happy with GW for that long?   And you really believe ArenaNet would consider reverting back to systems from more than 6 years ago at this point? If GW2 had been a financial failure I might see making the argument, but the NCSoft quarterly report showed that didn't turn out to be the case.

When did anyone say they expect ANet to make any changes to GW2 at this point?

Clearly, they believe that making things easier and more noob friendly is the best way to make profits.

We are simply asserting that those ways are boring and not as pleasurable as GW1's combat system.

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Might I suggest we all just agree to disagree?
It is completely pointless to argue with some people.

Namely GW2 fanboys that are oblivious to any possibility that GW1 did some things better than GW2?

Edited by unraveled, 19 February 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[Doctor Overlord]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

Not true. Just because you haven't done something, doesn't mean that doing it is inherently risky - especially if it has been proven NOT to be risky by others. If you need specific examples, I will be happy to provide them, but I hope you get the point.

MMO development is *always* risky.  Saying that making an MMO not risky just because someone else has been successful at is is ludicrous.   If that were true then all the WoW-clones should have been successful.  Show me an example of ANY business venture with zero risk, then we can both end up billionaires.

Quote

SWOTR is a bad example. It is not based on a game that was as popular as Guild Wars 1.

Yeah, Knights of the Old Republic was just some throw away little game franchise not worth mentioning.

Quote

I'm so sick of people saying why play Guild Wars 2 if you played Guild Wars 1 and expect it to be similar. If you don't already know the answer to that question, then you haven't thought about it long enough.

Why WOULDN'T they be similar???

Maybe because the devs had been telling people for years before the game was released that they wanted to do something different?   You are getting upset over something they've been explaining for the last 3 years.  And you are picking literal quotes from the Manifesto and ignoring all of the years of follow-up interviews.  

Also there are plenty of examples of video games that evolve over time.   Mass Effect 3 does not play like Mass Effect 1.  Oh wait, that's just another throw away franchise by Bioware.   Nonetheless good number of people happened to like it and didn't have much problem with the change.

If ArenaNet is disappointing you that much, then walk away.   That's what I do with companies and disappoint me. Complaining about how great the 'good old days' were seldom helped any movement into the future.

Lordkrall, on 19 February 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Might I suggest we all just agree to disagree?
It is completely pointless to argue with some people.

Quite true.   It does come down to a matter of what people personally like and what they personally think is better.  If they don't like what ArenaNet is doing but still see some need to complain about it after all these years, then I'll just let them.

Edited by unraveled, 19 February 2013 - 09:05 PM.
Defaulted font.

[Ritualist]

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

That is a very concise way of putting it.   The PvE combat was more of a method to test your builds.  If the builds worked, you were rewarded.  If they didn't, you get stomped.

I always found it odd in GW1 how combat could become trivial if you found the right build.    I was used to games where you needed to develop a skill at it but GW1 rewarded people more for creating builds.   I can see how that might be appealing to some but it did make combat feel more of an intellectual exercise than a clash of swords.

The reason why PvE turned into just a method of testing builds was because the game was poorly balanced. If Frenzy would be the IAS of choice (or, for instance, if RoF-like prots or interrupts ruled the game), then the match wouldn't be decided in the outpost.
Guess what category a Time Warped 100Blades falls into?

Except that GW1 at least gave you the option of heavy interrupts, no SY!, ... whereas GW2 really doesn't.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

So you haven't been happy with GW for that long?   And you really believe ArenaNet would consider reverting back to systems from more than 6 years ago at this point?    If GW2 had been a financial failure I might see making the argument, but the NCSoft quarterly report showed that didn't turn out to be the case.

Do I expect them to change GW2 now?
No.
Did I expect them to look at GW1 as they were making GW2 and hopefully realize what made GW1 good?
Absolutely.

[Dirame]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

Because, they said (and I quote):

"Guild Wars 2 takes everything you love about Guild Wars 1 and puts it into a persistent world that's got more active combat, a fully-branching, personalized storyline, a new event system to get people playing together, and still no monthly fees."
Source: http://wiki.guildwar...nifesto_trailer

I'm so sick of people saying why play Guild Wars 2 if you played Guild Wars 1 and expect it to be similar. If you don't already know the answer to that question, then you haven't thought about it long enough.

Why WOULDN'T they be similar???

They are similar but they aren't the same (as my ex-coworkers would say; Same same but different).

Ritualist, on 19 February 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

The reason why PvE turned into just a method of testing builds was because the game was poorly balanced. If Frenzy would be the IAS of choice (or, for instance, if RoF-like prots or interrupts ruled the game), then the match wouldn't be decided in the outpost.
Guess what category a Time Warped 100Blades falls into?

Except that GW1 at least gave you the option of heavy interrupts, no SY!, ... whereas GW2 really doesn't.





Do I expect them to change GW2 now?
No.
Did I expect them to look at GW1 as they were making GW2 and hopefully realize what made GW1 good?
Absolutely.

GW2 may not have heavy interrupts but interrupting requires more skill than it did in GW1. You can't kill someone from purely interrupting them but you can sure as hell make them feel useless.

[typographie]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

Thank you. Yes, it is certainly a giant difference to say "in my opinion" than "this is fact" and then walk away.

I didn't say either, for that matter. I never meant to portray my feelings as facts but I guess I assumed opinions were usually self-evident.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

What part of the combat system were you NOT referring to, when you were talking about its variety, dynamics and strategic depth? I mean, what else is left after that?

What is left (..in my opinion):

• I love the speed and mayhem of GW1's combat. I usually played a warrior.. Frenzy + a speed boost is something GW2's combat hasn't recaptured exactly.
  
• I also like the freedom of the skill bar, even though I think having so much choice reinforced cookie-cutter builds eventually.
  
• I liked most of the healing model. GW2 has made a compelling argument against it, but I think I still like healers in some form.
  
• I miss GW1's interrupt system. GW2 allows interrupting too, but its not "the same." It felt so great to be a Ranger interrupter.
  
• I miss the different bow classes based on range, arrow velocity and attack speed. That was a great idea that I've never seen in another game.
  
• The framerate!!!1!1!! GW2's performance is inexcusable, at times.

By "tactical depth" I meant spatial things like positioning and avoidance. In GW1, that basically meant not standing in fire and making sure your monk can reach you. In GW2, I feel like I can move more fluidly around the battlefield, and it makes a major difference to the outcome. Terrain matters more too, and the maps are, in theory, designed with that in mind.

You can cast most spells through walls in GW1. You can stand on a bridge and attack someone who was under you through the geometry (!) because the game had no Z-axis and considers you adjacent. I just think GW2 is, by design, more rewarding and encouraging of that type of play.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

I honestly think you are backtracking because you realize your statement is clearly wrong and you refuse to admit it.

I stand by what it said, just not the implied meanings it apparently had.

Edited by typographie, 19 February 2013 - 08:31 PM.

[El Duderino]

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

MMO development is *always* risky.  Saying that making an MMO not risky just because someone else has been successful at is is ludicrous.   If that were true then all the WoW-clones should have been successful.  Show me an example of ANY business venture with zero risk, then we can both end up billionaires.

So, when you said that "ArenaNet could have copied GW1.  That would have been the safe and easy thing to do." What you meant to say was that, ArenaNet could have copied GW1, that would have been the risky thing to do?

Seems that you are contradicting yourself a bit, eh?

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Yeah, Knights of the Old Republic was just some throw away little game franchise not worth mentioning, what was I thinking.
Maybe because the devs had been telling people for years before the game was released that they wanted to do something different?   You are getting upset over something they've been explaining for the last 3 years.  And you are picking literal quotes from the Manifesto and ignoring all of the years of follow-up interviews.  

It isn't even in the ballpark of sales compared to GW1 or GW2, so yes, it is rather meaningless as a basis for comparison.

Furthermore, it sets a bad example that you may not want to use, as SWOTR is pretty much a failure and dead.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

If ArenaNet is disappointing you that much, then walk away.   That's what I do with companies and disappointment me.  ArenaNet is doing just fine financially and the chances of them reverting back to GW1 mechanics is nil.   All the arguing is not going to change that.

Apparently, you don't adhere to the "let's try and make things better" argument. You're pretty much comfy with the "leave well enough alone" argument?

It's because we all LOVE guild wars. You and me and everyone else. We want it to succeed. We see flaws. We want to suggest fixes.

If you don't like that idea - then why do you continue to troll the forums?

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Also there are plenty of examples of video games that evolve over time.   Mass Effect 3 does not play like Mass Effect 1.  Oh wait, that's just another throw away franchise by Bioware.   Nonetheless good number of people happened to like it and didn't have much problem with the change.

We aren't talking about evolving over time. We are talking about Guild Wars 2 not being really anything like Guild Wars 1 even though ArenaNet said that they would be similar.

What part of this don't you understand or accept?

[Ritualist]

Dirame, on 19 February 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

GW2 may not have heavy interrupts but interrupting requires more skill than it did in GW1. You can't kill someone from purely interrupting them but you can sure as hell make them feel useless.

You mean in PvE?

[Lordkrall]

Ritualist, on 19 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

You mean in PvE?

NPCs don't have feelings.
So, no he quite clearly means PvP.

[El Duderino]

typographie, on 19 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

I didn't say either, for that matter. I never meant to portray my feelings as facts but I guess I assumed opinions were usually self-evident.

I'm sorry if I felt that they were facts if they were intended to be opinion. Still doesn't mean that it wasn't worth making another thread about it - to get it out of a thread where it was "off topic".

typographie, on 19 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

What is left (..in my opinion):

• I love the speed and mayhem of GW1's combat. I usually played a warrior.. Frenzy + a speed boost is something GW2's combat hasn't recaptured exactly.
  
• I also like the freedom of the skill bar, even though I think having so much choice reinforced cookie-cutter builds eventually.
  
• I liked most of the healing model. GW2 has made a compelling argument against it, but I think I still like healers in some form.
  
• I miss GW1's interrupt system. GW2 allows interrupting too, but its not "the same." It felt so great to be a Ranger interrupter.
  
• I miss the different bow classes based on range, arrow velocity and attack speed. That was a great idea that I've never seen in another game.
  
• The framerate!!!1!1!! GW2's performance is inexcusable, at times.

By "tactical depth" I meant spatial things like positioning and avoidance. In GW1, that basically meant not standing in fire and making sure your monk can reach you. In GW2, I feel like I can move more fluidly around the battlefield, and it makes a major difference to the outcome. Terrain matters more too, and the maps are, in theory, designed with that in mind.


You can cast most spells through walls in GW1. You can stand on a bridge and attack someone who was under you through the geometry (!) because the game had no Z-axis and considers you adjacent. I just think GW2 is, by design, more rewarding and encouraging of that type of play.

I can't say that I disagree with any of this. Ultimately, I think part of the disconnect is that people who primarily played PvP in GW1 feel that the skill and finesse needed to win is overwhelmingly better than GW2. However, I can certainly see how much of that was not needed in PvE and therefore never used/witnessed.

I never said that I hated GW2's combat, but personally, I don't feel that while there are improvements in GW2's combat, that they brought over some of the wonderful things that GW1 offered - which felt you did not think existed.

If I could change two things about GW2's combat, it would be that characters actually take up space, which would make kiting much more effective and exciting and that we bought back the utility classes and skills that made GW1 AWESOME.

If I could change two thing about GW1's combat, it would definitely be the z-axis problem and the better ability to use terrain in GW2 than in GW1.

typographie, on 19 February 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

I stand by what it said, just not the implied meanings it apparently had.

I'm sorry if I took it the wrong way. But it did create a hell of a thread!

Dirame, on 19 February 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

GW2 may not have heavy interrupts but interrupting requires more skill than it did in GW1. You can't kill someone from purely interrupting them but you can sure as hell make them feel useless.

I'm so confused. Are you really saying that interrupting someone requires more skill in GW2 than in GW1?

[Doctor Overlord]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

So, when you said that "ArenaNet could have copied GW1.  That would have been the safe and easy thing to do." What you meant to say was that, ArenaNet could have copied GW1, that would have been the risky thing to do?

Seems that you are contradicting yourself a bit, eh?

I rather admire someone able to twist words as well as you do.   You make absolute statements ("doesn't mean that doing it is inherently risky - especially if it has been proven NOT to be risky by others."   = meaning something is not risky at all because someone else has done it) and when someone tries to bring up the nuances of reality you accuse them of contradictions.

/golfclap.

Just to be clear, making any MMO is risky.  Copying GW1 would have been easier and thus comparatively less risky in a business venture that is still filled with risk.    ArenaNet tried something different which added, rather than decrease, their risk and that is something you don't see often in the MMO industry.  

And I 'troll' the forums for the same reason you do.  I like this game and I don't want to see complaints be the only thing filling these forums which we know are viewed by ArenaNet.   I don't want them to get the  impression that there is wide agreement on these viewpoints which is most certainly not the case.  

I am all for seeing the game improved.   Devolving back to GW1, a game I did not enjoy much at all, is not a direction I want to see happen.

But I can see this discussion is not going anywhere.  You believe GW2 is starting to fail because it is not enough like GW1.   I see financial reports that indicate GW2 is doing quite well and see no need to fix something that is proving successful, a success I believe due in part because is not like GW1.

I'll mark on Google calendar to come back to this thread in a year.  Or even 6 months.   If GW2 is failing and ArenaNet is losing money because their current choices are as bad as you say, then this discussion will have far more weight. If the game is continuing to be successful but you still don't like the choices they have made in that time, then any discussion can be carried on in that light.

Edited by Doctor Overlord, 19 February 2013 - 09:18 PM.
Defaulted font.

[Infuse]

Thing I don't understand is the fact that you guys are so focused on builds,,, Yes there was a thousand skills on GW1 but thoses skills were there because they could fill multiple fonctions, some of these fonctions have disapeared in GW2 : Diversion, Infuse, Vanilla bullstrike, etc...

Guild wars 2 is a pve game. Anet has developped the game for pve players, wich they did fine. But hell, I don't like the PvP on gw2, not at all, it's nothing compared to gw1. And No pve player can argue on this.

I'd like to point that the debate needs some clarification because lot of you are gw1's pve players, wich is a completely different mind set than a pvp player (By PvP I mean Ha and GvG).
Yes it's a better game for pve
No it's not a better game for PvP; and if you haven't done hardcore PvP, you can't understand. There was a huuuuge gap in knowledge and understanding between the pvp and the pve community, and it still persists.

[Dirame]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

I'm so confused. Are you really saying that interrupting someone requires more skill in GW2 than in GW1?

YES! Dude, if you're really going to argue about this just go pick a mesmer in GW2 and see how hard it is to land an interrupt on an important skill like a heal. Just playing an interrupt build on the mesmer requires 3 hands and 16 fingers.

[Infuse]

Dirame, on 19 February 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

YES! Dude, if you're really going to argue about this just go pick a mesmer in GW2 and see how hard it is to land an interrupt on an important skill like a heal. Just playing an interrupt build on the mesmer requires 3 hands and 16 fingers.

It's not fun anymore... You can't play builds in pvp like those in gw1. And I'm sorry to tell you that, but to me, interrupting a healing skill is easy in gw2 as long as your interrupt is shorter than the skill... Healing skills are also very flashy. I wish you could understand how joyfull it was to interrupt a infuse monk doing his infuse with a diversion shot on gw1 just because you knew your team would land a spike on his team member...

[Dirame]

Infuse, on 19 February 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

It's not fun anymore... You can't play builds in pvp like those in gw1. And I'm sorry to tell you that, but to me, interrupting a healing skill is easy in gw2 as long as your interrupt is shorter than the skill... Healing skills are also very flashy. I wish you could understand how joyfull it was to interrupt a infuse monk doing his infuse with a diversion shot on gw1 just because you knew your team would land a spike on his team member...

I personally still enjoy it mainly because it's just fun to see a warrior winding up an eviserate and suddenly stop mid-air or a bull's charge and then suddenly stop right in front of me. It's even more hilarious when fighting eles.

So yea, I personally still find it fun and funny to play and it's very useful in team fights. Shutting down the enemy team's necro or mesmer is just glorious.

Also yes, there are a lot of signifiers whilst fighting but in the chaos of a battle, it's hard to see all these things and that's when it requires more skill, more prediction, more proactive thinking. Also, with thieves trying to hack your tail, interrupting gets even more intense.

Edited by Dirame, 19 February 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Infuse]

Dirame, on 19 February 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

I personally still enjoy it mainly because it's just fun to see a warrior winding up an eviserate and suddenly stop mid-air or a bull's charge and then suddenly stop right in front of me. It's even more hilarious when fighting eles.

So yea, I personally still find it fun and funny to play and it's very useful in team fights. Shutting down the enemy team's necro or mesmer is just glorious.

Also yes, there are a lot of signifiers whilst fighting but in the chaos of a battle, it's hard to see all these things and that's when it requires more skill, more prediction, more proactive thinking. Also, with thieves trying to hack your tail, interrupting gets even more intense.

I understand, but it's very different in gw2 in that it mostly has an impact on just one individual. On gw1 interrupting and disabling an healing monk, or a blinding ele, or a mesmer, created momentum that the entire team would feel. Because the team play was much more developped.

On gw2 players have a lot less effects on players and do mostly damages/blocks. I mean, you could feel any player's role in GvG back in gw1. On guild wars 2 you can feel a player role when he does massives damages or massives heals (wich happens rarely). Players were a lot more dependent of each other in gw1.

[mdapol]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

Um, did you play GW1 at all? The weapon swapping in GW1 is nothing like GW2 and vise versa.

GW1 weapon swapping was all about skill and taking advantage of situations.

GW2 weapon swapping is nothing more than 5 new skills to spam. They are nothing alike in any way shape or form.

So what game are you going to be moving on to, now that you've had enough of GW2?  Back to GW1 or on to some other game?

[El Duderino]

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

I rather admire someone able to twist words as well as you do.   You make absolute statements ("doesn't mean that doing it is inherently risky - especially if it has been proven NOT to be risky by others."   = meaning something is not risky at all because someone else has done it) and when someone tries to bring up the nuances of reality you accuse them of contradictions.

Ok, so you're statement in the quote below is NOT an absolute? Because, that is what I was responding to. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Implementing things you haven't done before is always riskier than doing what you know.  

Of course, I accuse contradictions of being contradictions! Look at your two posts below and tell me that they don't contradict each other?

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

ArenaNet could have copied GW1.  That would have been the safe and easy thing to do.

ArenaNet took a risk doing something different in the area of AAA MMOs where the risks are measured in millions of dollars.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

MMO development is *always* risky.  Saying that making an MMO not risky just because someone else has been successful at is is ludicrous.  

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Just to be clear, making any MMO is risky.  Copying GW1 would have been easier and thus comparatively less risky in a business venture that is still filled with risk.

But not the "safe and easy thing to do"? Because you said it was the safe and easy thing to do.

I mean, I could be in the minority here, but I am pretty sure safe and easy don't make me think risky. Maybe I'm just not that good with my vocabulary.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

And I 'troll' the forums for the same reason you do.  I like this game and I don't want to see complaints be the only thing filling these forums which we know are viewed by ArenaNet.   I don't want them to get the  impression that there is wide agreement on these viewpoints which is most certainly not the case.  

When you tell someone to stop playing, it's trolling. Plain and simple. Don't do that and you won't be a troll.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

I am all for seeing the game improved.   Devolving back to GW1, a game I did not enjoy much at all, is not a direction I want to see happen.

That is your opinion. You can have it. Just let the rest of us have ours. There were plenty of people that likes Guild Wars 1 enough to make it one of the best MMO games ever - which is WHY Guild Wars 2 was able to be developed. If Guild Wars 1 wasn't a resounding success, Guild Wars 2 wouldn't have happened. So, your love of Guild Wars 2 is only available because other people loved a game you hated.

Pretty crazy huh?

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

But I can see this discussion is not going anywhere.  You believe GW2 is starting to fail because it is not enough like GW1.   I see financial reports that indicate GW2 is doing quite well and see no need to fix something that is proving successful, a success I believe due in part because is not like GW1.

I never said GW2 is failing. It is certainly a possibility. You said yourself many people have tried to copy WoW and failed. Guild Wars 2 is still in its first year and its successes can still be attributed to GW1's success. It's long term success and sustainability will tell the real truth. Nothing can be determined at this point because it is too soon.

Doctor Overlord, on 19 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

I'll mark on Google calendar to come back to this thread in a year.  Or even 6 months.   If GW2 is failing and ArenaNet is losing money because their current choices are as bad as you say, then this discussion will have far more weight. If the game is continuing to be successful but you still don't like the choices they have made in that time, then any discussion can be carried on in that light.

I agree that time will tell. However, just because ANet does well doesn't mean there can't be things that can be improved.

Guild Wars 1 had TONS of problems, and it was still successful.

You can't take every mechanic in a game and say it is good relative to the overall success of a game.

We definitely need to agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to budge when you clearly hated Guild Wars 1 and I clearly loves Guild Wars 1, which is where much of our arguments stems from.

mdapol, on 19 February 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

So what game are you going to be moving on to, now that you've had enough of GW2?  Back to GW1 or on to some other game?

Beware! Don't feed the trolls!

[Lordkrall]

And yet it is very possible to love both GW1 AND GW2, but loving a game does not mean you should be completely blind to its faults.

[Dirame]

Infuse, on 19 February 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

I understand, but it's very different in gw2 in that it mostly has an impact on just one individual. On gw1 interrupting and disabling an healing monk, or a blinding ele, or a mesmer, created momentum that the entire team would feel. Because the team play was much more developped.

On gw2 players have a lot less effects on players and do mostly damages/blocks. I mean, you could feel any player's role in GvG back in gw1. On guild wars 2 you can feel a player role when he does massives damages or massives heals (wich happens rarely). Players were a lot more dependent of each other in gw1.

Actually, the team play in GW2 is developing such that, having someone interrupting the Necro (Signet rez) or the Mesmer (Illusion of life) keeps the tide from turning against you. So yea, GW2 does have that cascading effect, may be not as much due to the heavy reliance on Monks in GW1 but it definitely has it to the degree where it affects the ebb and flow of a fight.

[Infuse]

Dirame, on 19 February 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

Actually, the team play in GW2 is developing such that, having someone interrupting the Necro (Signet rez) or the Mesmer (Illusion of life) keeps the tide from turning against you. So yea, GW2 does have that cascading effect, may be not as much due to the heavy reliance on Monks in GW1 but it definitely has it to the degree where it affects the ebb and flow of a fight.

You're probably right. I hope that the PvP in guild wars 2 will evolve a lot more and have stuff like spikes (I really, really, really loved calling spikes !) and long team battles... Because as of right now, rupting a rez isn't gonna make me love the pvp.

[Raagar Deathclaw]

After playing both gw1 and gw2 I must say that I prefer the combat in gw2 in almost everyway. The fact that I can run out of a red circle while casting a spell is wonderful and the dodge mechanic is very helpful while remaining valuable enough that I won't dodge out of everything. The one thing I would like to see is more elite skills since there is only one elite my necro can use underwater

[JHCinSC]

I loved GW1 and played it from release until GW2 came out.  I enjoy GW2 and play it daily to get my daily achievement, but I hate that most of my skills tied to weapons and the lackluster trait system.  I guess they did it this way since it's easier to balance preset blocks of skills vs allowing you to choose your favorites from all of a profession's skills.  Unfortunately gameplay suffers because of this design decision.  It is no where as robust as the GW1 system.   Being able to use another professions abilities (although at a lesser level than a primary user) was awesome and helped mitigate the effects of nerfs as you could find another set of skills to use.  In GW2 nerfs hurt a lot more because of the limited skills available.  I love that in GW2 you have a choice of more weapon types.  I love using a sword or axe with my Ranger, but unfortunately I usually run with a long bow and short bow just to get the ranged abilities I want.  If I could chose any 5 bow skills and then put them on the bow of my choice I could use a sword as my alt weapon.  I for one would have loved to see GW1's primary and secondary skills melded with GW2's improved movement, dodging and increased weapon varieties.  As things stand with GW2 I just can't see me playing it for as long as I did GW1.  I am hoping that we get improvements with each patch and that maybe the first expansion will provide game changing (and saving) improvements.

[Norn Osprey]

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

So, you don't spam your skills and wait for recharge? What do you do instead, run around and hope no one catched you?

No, I do not need to spam skills. Every weapon has a base attack that can be auto-enabled. To use CC skills as a damage ability shows a lack of comprehension and consideration on the player.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Gasp! Why didn't ANet do these things from the beginning! Gasp! How long is it going to take to implement? Gasp! What if more players decide to leave instead of waiting.
Gasp! Why do you feel the need to use the expression "gasp" other than to make a condescending gesture?

I don't work for Arena Net. I can't tell you why things in the game are the way they are. Asking me is pointless but you know that when you put the question out there. You weren't trying to get an answer, none of this is about an answer. You are angry, bitter and lashing out at anyone that disagrees with you.

What if more players decide to leave?  Then they leave. What will or can Arena Net do to keep them? If players have decided to leave, then they will leave no matter what Anet decides to do.

I used that gesture once. You used it four times. Which one of us is the condescending one?

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

So, why do you play MMO's if you clearly don't like playing with, and relying on, other people?

I never said I didn't enjoy playing with other people. I said, I didn't enjoy wasting my time on drama majors. There is a difference but again, you knew that when you posed the question. You weren't really looking for a reply. You were baiting and trolling.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

People seem to miss the fact that, again, BY INTENTIONAL DESIGN, GW2 is supposed to be easier than GW1, so your point is moot.

I will say it again, GW2, by ANet's own intentional design, is easier and more noob/casual friendly than GW1. If you disagree, then you are flat out wrong.

Have you watched/listened to Izzy Cartwights 3 part long interview where he details why GW1 wouldnt be ported into GW2?  Why it was impossible to actually balance the skills ? Why it was a mistake to design GW1 the way it was?

GW1 combat was a train wreck. There are reasons why no one designs games like that anymore. Listen to Izzy's interviews. I have the links at home and will post them when I get their tonight.

And I will say again, nothing in GW1 was really that difficult once PvX, YouTube vids, Wiki comments were put in describing in detail what players needed for any given mission/map/etc.

Opinions can't be right or wrong, they just are.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Having the right build did not make playing GW1 easier,

Complete and utter Bull. This is, flat out, a bold faced lie.

Prophecies was interesting, so was GW1 beta which I was a part of, before skill bloat and heroes were added. Players had to work together to clear areas/missions.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

GW1 was better in people's OPINION, because it required more skill than build. Part of the reason for this was because you NEEDED utility in order to survive. Mesmers, interrupt rangers, healers, etc. all had a place in helping your team win.

In GW2 you basically have given up most of the utility for damage and the content is created around that fact. Which makes things easier

And all of those players could be replaced, and were, with Heroes. NPC interruptors were far better than players since both sets of NPCs resided on the game server. No internet packet travel time. I could barely see a mob start something before Gwen shut them down.

With weapon swapping in GW2, you still have utility. Many players rarely swap weapons. I rarely see Eles swapping attunements. That isn't a fault of the game's design. This is no different than players in GW1 failing to take utility slots or playing smart.

However In GW1, players could stack 8 stuns or other similar skills. Honestly, that was overpowered. They never should have let players have all 8 skills from a secondary. Should have been 5/3. Any skill should have triggered a similar-skill cooldown. Those two things would have gone a long way to balancing GW1.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

You obviously didn't play GW1, because  I had multiple armor sets for all of my characters.

Just because you either 1) didn't play GW1 or 2) didn't know how to use these mechanics in GW1 doesn't mean they didn't exist. They were just a bit more subtle instead of laid out in your face BY DESIGN to make the game easier for casuals and noobs.

I did play GW1. I was also a beta tester. I also had multiple sets of armor. Never needed them because I could swap secondaries and trivilize about anything the mission/map threw at me.

Subtle, what was subtle when swapping secondaries and having access to every skill without restriction undermining any need for special purpose armor and weapons.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

I honestly don't think that GW2 combat system is atrocious. But to say that GW2 is superior to GW1's based on making some mechanics dumbed down and easier is grasping at air.

We have dodging which replaces kiting. Dodging is easier and less complex than kiting.

To say GW1 was superior, when multiple sites have a step-by-step guide for every encounter is really reaching.

Kiting is still happening. Maybe not by you, but I sure use it when I feel the need to solo multiple Vets or a Champ.

El Duderino, on 19 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

We have a mechanic designed around weapon swapping two weapon which replaces the 4 weapon slots used by GW1 and makes things easier and less complex.

Both games have weapons swapping, so this isnt anything new. What does differ is limiting skills based on which weapons you have equipped.

That is your real issue isnt it?  You can't stand the percieved lack of freedom. So you created this entire thread, trolling dissenters constantly to prove a point that is just an opinion. That GW2 is inferior to GW1 because you cant stack multiples of the same skill type.

[st_clouds]

GW1 combat was very rock paper scissor ish . It's 70% luck, 30% skill. That or spend an inordinate amount of time in your lives waiting to get a group. And still if you run against a build that counters you, you're toast. Plus you won't run into lemmings as much such as the suicidal necros and such. GW1 was very much a build wars more than skill wars. Gw2 is a lot less so. Each class is much better balanced, more self sufficient. Roles aren't as easily defined. Combat is richer despite having limited skill sets - because the number of possible combination of the skills & traits you carry to fights is a lot more nuanced than in GW1. You need to know when to dodge, the order of execution, placement etc. All those make Gw2 a richer and better system.