Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Radiea

Member Since 20 Jan 2012
Offline Last Active Jul 13 2013 02:04 PM

#1896219 What do GW1 players think of GW2?

Posted tagomago on 07 September 2012 - 08:21 AM

Remember how fun it was getting a new eliteskill and trying to make a build around it?
The new skill system is incredibly boring. It's what really makes GW2 a repetitive game.


#1896202 What do GW1 players think of GW2?

Posted mentalvortex on 07 September 2012 - 08:15 AM

View PostRitter, on 07 September 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Sorry, but the guys here talk about free-form character building as something that has been shat out by Jesus. While the idea was interesting there were too many skills that were similar to each other, and the worst thing of all it created a balancing nightmare and in the end force players into certain builds if they wanted to be competitive. Imbalance might be alright in a SP games but definitely not in a multiplayer game, and a PvP-focus multplayer game at that.

Characters and events maybe were more interesting in GW1 but the consequence of this is an instanced world and a fragmented playerbase.

The exploration was complete shit compared to other MMORPGs. There were so many invisible walls, the maps were too corridor-ish( again compared to other MMORPGs), you couldn't even jump make navigating a real chores.
I hate the imbalance issue because imbalance exists in all PvP games. Even DotA has a tier list that has many of the same heroes be picked over and over again to fulfill certain roles. The fact that the ones that ARE used in higher level play all serve certain needs and supply different elements to the team. I'll compare the two directly in how ANet has approached GW2.

If DotA 2 took the example of GW2, they would have made 10 heroes as opposed to over 100 and made them all function as an initiator role. No one wants to watch that, it would never thrive as an esport so instead they kept the over 100 heroes and made continual patches in attempt to balance them. Would they ever be fully balanced to the point where all of them were equally viable? Probably not. Did it give you more choice? Yes.

So the comparison between DotA and GW[1] exists to where that while not all builds are equally as viable, they're at least different and an option. People play every single one of the heroes, as people experiment with every single one of the builds in GW - just not as the highest level. It's a compromise, there's a tier list - sure. There's also acknowledging that only people who are competitive give a damn. You know Random Arena thrived, right?

Which moves me to another function of why DotA and GW were successful at PvP - the system of roles. They did away with this because they focused on every player being equally balanced for PvE - or well that's what they're trying for. That destroys the whole system of PvP and makes it a trivial zergfest full of 5 characters that function as the exact same role. As I said earlier, if DotA did this - it would have never become popular. It's not fun to watch and it's not fun to play. PvP in GW2 is a joke.

We can compromise by saying that GW2 is for PvE players and GW1 was marketed towards PvP players. Because if ANet is actually trying to make GW2 an esport in PvP they certainly aren't showing it. They didn't even bother implementing a guild ELO system on release. That was the main drawing point behind GW for many players and the fact it wasn't the first thing they brought in shows a drastic shift of priorities. PvP is just a gamemode to pass the time in GW2.


#1895593 What do GW1 players think of GW2?

Posted RabidusIncendia on 07 September 2012 - 04:56 AM

Dumbed down, but fun.


#1895590 What do GW1 players think of GW2?

Posted StormDragonZ on 07 September 2012 - 04:56 AM

I have no valid opinion about GW2. Never played it, don't intend to play it any time soon, however there is a small glimmer of hope I may decide to try it out on my own.

What I can say is this: ArenaNet died back in 2010. This new, modern ArenaNet lost their imagination and intelligence and substituted it for a combination of candy, shiny diamonds and the lost art of beauty through poetry and wisdom.

GW1 is, truly, one of a kind. GW2 is nothing more than an attempt. If there's anything that changed the way we look at MMOs, it was GW1. I'd be damned if there is, or ever will be, something like it.

Exactly.


#1895346 What do GW1 players think of GW2?

Posted Dulu on 07 September 2012 - 03:25 AM

Better graphics.

Worse in every other regard. Although, WvW has a lot of potential.


#1594093 I'm afraid GW2 will not be an E-sport

Posted Azures on 12 July 2012 - 07:11 PM

View PostBunzaga, on 12 July 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Since when do casuals conduce an eSport environment?  They said they were making WvW for casuals to be able to get into...  I am getting sick of companies catering to the 'casuals'.  eSports are made for hardcore, elite teams, who play games for a fkn living, not for Mr weekend warrior.  eSports are fun to watch because we get to see people playing a game on a level most people can't even dream of, we get to see the potential of what we could do, if were were good.

Just my two cents.

Game needs to be successful first. E-sport stuff comes afterwards.


#1595401 gw2 Competive spvp is atm just bullshit

Posted Timid on 13 July 2012 - 04:50 AM

View PostRabidusIncendia, on 13 July 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

If everyone made a 34 page examination of the topic, I'd have a few thousand pages to read :/  His opinion isn't suddenly worth me to me because he can write more on the topic, so I am not investing my time to read it.

Why is it that if someone takes the time to put together a well-reasoned article examining a subject it's a waste of time, but if they spew rabid mouth-foam all over a thread and amass the same quantity of words, one post at a time, it's suddenly acceptable? I'm not suggesting everyone should read the paper (34 pages may be a lot for people outside of academia), but I will simply because I've exchanged posts with the author and he has earned my time and interest. That's not something I can say for everyone on these or any other forums. People don't have to read it, but they shouldn't act like it's a ridiculous thing to do... we're all long past the point where we can point fingers and cry "Nerd!" How many posted

Note: this isn't a reference to you or anyone specifically, just a general observation. Also, I generally try to read every post in a thread I respond to because it's a matter of respect; how can I expect people to read what I write if I won't give them the same courtesy? I have regretted this policy on a number of occasions, most of which involve a certain very opinionated muppet.


#1573621 Engineers and RNG

Posted Genesis on 05 July 2012 - 04:28 AM

View PostDraconious, on 05 July 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

I will give an example of a case in which RNG could determine the outcome of a fight. If a warrior running an enviscerate  hits an engie who just used threw elixir H several things can happen. (Let's assume the warrior hits for 9k crit, the engie cannot dodge and is locked down with no stun or cc to counter)
For throw Elixir H 3 boobs can result:
You gain vigor (100% endurance Regan) not of use in this situation
You gain Regan(+900 health over entire effect) final damage recieved will be 8.1k dmg
You gain protection(+33% dmg reduction) final damage received will be 6k dmg
Wouldn't that be something? But it would likely be called Elixir Chick From Total Recall. ;)