I post stuff, on 27 November 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:
In Guild Wars you don't really lose or miss out on anything much.
'tis true. The only thing you lost if you failed a mission was time. I guess that the only exceptions were FoW/UW since you had to pay to enter. But farming up 125 gold (or 1k even) took like 5 minutes so...
El Duderino, on 28 November 2014 - 01:27 AM, said:
Which is why I dislike the term "elitism," it makes developers want to make games without elitism - which dumbs down content, depth and complexity. Elitism isn't a bad thing in a game; however, it can be difficult for players to find players of similar skill level or when players of vastly different skill levels play each other. That can create the bad reactions that are associated with elitism. Basically, if there is a mechanic to keep people from getting kicked from teams or blown out from competitive scenarios, elitism's problems become near null.
Very true - however, not allowing people to filter their teams bring whole new sets of problems with it. Regardless how that filter is implemented, vote kick, leader kick, automatic matching, or no filter at all, there's always someone who will feel treated unfairly, and there will always be some treatment that actually is unfair. I think that GW1's model of having leader kick in a persistent (and co-existent) lobby was nearly perfect: the leader retained some control of the team he was setting up, and the team members could still vote her out, if needed, by simply leaving the team and forming a new one.
Eh, maybe that's not what you meant, haha.
Haggus, on 28 November 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:
That's the stuff that made it a great e-sport-type game, especially in GvG. Even when certain skill sets became meta, it was the team with the best cohesion and use of those skills that won. I would take any one of those GvG tournaments over the stuff offered in PvP in GW2.
On the PvE side, the HM elite quests and missions were great, as well. How many times did people kill themselves trying to do Mallyx? The end stories of the current game pale in comparison. The dungeons of GW2 can't hold a candle to those in the original game. The saddest thing is, in those, they can't fall back on it being persistent world issues.
As for elitism, in any competitive game, you have to earn your stripes to play with anyone in the harder parts of the game. Despite what Mommy and Daddy told you, you are not just as special as everyone else. Those with more skill and experience than you in something are better than you in that thing. deal with it. In GW, that was shown in its PvP and elite Missions(Mallyx et al). If you wanted to go casual, fine. Just don't get pissed when someone wants to see your build. Your build and weapons choices showed what you knew about your class, and what you knew about synergy. I wouldn't turn someone away for not having the flavor of the month on their bar. If they had stuff that looked like they picked the skills at random, or took no account of their energy pool or cast times, I'd give them suggestions. Most people took those suggestions. Some were a-holes, and were kicked. Those are usually the ones who turn around and cry about how "elitist" the game was. It's not elitism. It's not wanting to wipe because you decided to run all healing on your monk bar and carry 3 15E skills!
...or for that matter, monks who thought it would be a good idea to play as an MM "because I am secondary necro", or the warrior that thinks that hey, warriors can use three different types of weapon, so let's cram them all into the same build. Preferably while filling none of the attribute reqs of the actual weapons that he used. Yeah sorry, that won't fly and if that's elitism then I'm sorry but in that case I'll be an elitist.
On the other hand you had the ubiquitous r0 elementalist that turns up in tombs and tries to join your team (that was announced as r9+), insisting that he "can play anything" and that you should "give him a chance". Sure, turning down a guy like that, that just wanted to play and actually might have had a decent build, sometimes felt like elitism. But as El Duderino said, it's not always bad. The team was intended to get to HoH and hold it for some time, not just play around a bit on the first maps, and while he would probably enjoy getting r2 for free on his first visit to real PvP, he'd probably also weigh down the team, making them fail a lot more. It might be elitism, but not unfair such.
jayson, on 28 November 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:
I always hated the word "elite" when used in any context regarding GW as it didn't really apply. Words like "dedicated" or "intensity" were usually more appropriate (but never used) and being "elite" came off as not having an actual reason to group with a person in GW. It would be like saying "Sorry, you're not wearing FoW armor so you can't join." and as you've stated, that was never the case. Absolutely agree with kicking anti social people who won't ping their build or people who do and had horrendously bad bars for HM. For NM? I let a lot slide.
Also I think El Duderino is correct as to one of the reasons why GW2 became the product it did. Dumb it down so there's no bad builds and make every build do the same thing with the only real difference being the cosmetic implementation and everyone is happy... in theory anyway.
Yep, NM was the playground, HM was more serious. Or sometimes playground too, depending on what area we're talking about.
You mention something interesting. I think that you are right that that was the theory, and as we all know, the practice didn't match the theory this time... Well, some people are happy, the ones that liked the original often aren't. So what's the problem? It's the same thing that I harped on so much during the GW1 days, and that so few agreed on back then because back then, it was sort of annoying... If every build is good, there is nothing good about a good build. There needs to be bad builds in order to be good builds. You need to be able to fail in order to succeed. In GW2, you succeed at everything. The only exception is that sometimes, you need to go through the motions of unlocking mechanics or statistics that are throttled by some wholly abstract mechanism ("levels" or "skills" or "fractal levels" etc). If you ever fail, you do so in the very end, because you were unskilled - in a game where you have been taught to just wait for the next level to improve.
Well, they did aim to make a "real" MMO this time.
Joystiq's got the biggest boner for F2P ever. I think its because that way they can cover the content to an extent without incurring a financial lose to subscribe to these games. If you really go through their backlog on Massively, you'll see a huge push for games to give up subs and adopt F2P. This skews their analysis.
I hadn't thought of that before, but suddenly I loathe these people.
RandolfRa, on 27 November 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:
Eve online is pretty much like that. You can lose your ISK investments but practically can't lose your skill points.
Personally I could find a game like that interesting. But only if the concept would add actual depth to the game. What you have for example in Dark Souls, is just a gimmick. The game would be almost exactly the same without any death penalty. You'd just play less carefully and try more "stupid" things. Eve online however, could never work without it's risk vs. reward structure.
In any case, I would not want this kind of stuff to be part of Guild Wars. I always thought Guild Wars as a game that is all about playing some part of the game, and not about analysing if that part of the game is worth doing.
EVE has a lot of very interesting things going for it. Sadly the template doesn't really transfer to a game where you are not playing a, well, ship. Or ship captain.
I disagree that Dark Souls' dropping of souls is a gimmick (the death penalty in DS2 is, though). The part that encourages careful play, yes, is a gimmick. As you say, the game would be the same without the penalty of losing your souls - except right after you lost them. Because right after you lost them, you respawn at the most recently visited bonfire, and have to reach the spot you died in order to regain what you lost. The cool part of dropping your souls upon death is that the game is saying: "you came this far, now if you can do that again I'll give back what I took from you". The mechanic drives you to excel. It might still be a little bit gimmicky, but the effect is quite real and quite good, too.
I would like to ask you what you mean about that last part: "I always thought Guild Wars as a game that is all about playing some part of the game, and not about analysing if that part of the game is worth doing".
Yes, that's what the story (and the loot) is for. But what do you mean by analyzing if it's worth doing?
Baron von Scrufflebutt, on 25 November 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:
But isn't this the same as a new currency? If we apply your concept to the idea of introducing new rewards, wouldn't these new rewards need to be ground out the same way new currencies currently need to be? Or do you think that the increased rewards (along with the increased risks), would make the process feel different?
With that out of the way, I find your idea interesting and I can see it working, I just don't know if I'd be interested in it. It reminds me of Hardcore D3: I played a few characters through it, but ultimately I return to Softcore. It's also why I like GW1: you're not constantly chasing rewards, you gear up once and then you are set for years. As I said, I can appreciate your idea and would be fun to try out, I just don't know if it would appeal to the Guild Wars player.
Well. I didn't mean "put this new currency into GW2", I meant build a new MMO around this concept. There would just be that one currency, or maybe one currency that you could save up and another that was lost when you died. The point would be that you couldn't really save up the one that you lose, which would make it possible to use both to "force" (read: engage) the players to play the content, and make the game more exciting. The only way to keep it would be to invest it, increasing the value of the items you invest in (both because you'd value them more because of the investment, and because in order to make the game feel right, they'd have to be actually useful!).
There were a lot of players in GW1 to which I think that this would appeal. The average GW2 player, though... maybe not.
Baron von Scrufflebutt, on 25 November 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:
Does Brianna think GW2 is a game or something? The point of new currencies is to timegate the players: the currencies aren't there for the good of the players, they are there to force players to continue exposing themselves to the product.
I want to talk about a more expanded quote:
Commenters rightly pointed out that if modern devs did what old timey devs did, players would just rush in and buy everything on day one and not do the grind. But so what? Why should it bother us that people get to actually use the currency they've already earned and banked? That's the whole point of gathering money in MMOs in the first place. And if there's so much existing currency in the world that everyone could buy everything without additional grind, that's the studio's problem for providing insufficient sinks and a poor economy in the first place, not ours.
Well, consider an hypothetical MMO where the point was not to gather money, but stuff (well, actually, the point would be to play a game, but... ya). Unsellable stuff, or sellable stuff that you don't want to sell anyway. Stuff like armor that is customized to you, or unique weapons that you wouldn't want to sell simply because their value as a collectible, or as an item you use in the game, is far more than its selling value. An MMO that would be perilous, make you die often, and when you died, you lost your gold. In instances, the game would do the whole Dark Souls thing where you can reach your corpse and regain your gold, but in the open world you'd just lose it. Massive gold sink, yet one that rewards skilled players strongly (perhaps too strongly, maybe only losing half your gold or something would be better).
A reward structure, basically, that both draws people in and gives them excitement.
(yeah and you can't put gold in chests/bank, you have to carry it with you)