shiggidyshwa

ShezuTsukai, on 24 January 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Clearing maps and worrying about dailies isn't playing like GW1. In GW1 you just had to follow the story.

Gilles VI, on 21 January 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

No I agree with Daesu. The GW1 skill system was what made GW1 PvP fun to begin with.

I don't want mounts.

I just want a god damn flying carpet for my mesmer.

You've murdered hundreds(possibly thousands) of "bandits", most of which you never saw commit a crime, they were just labelled "bandits".
You've probably done horrific damage to the ecosystems of Tyria by murdering all the wildlife.
You've probably helped asura test on live, sapient test subjects.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea by now. So what makes you think whipping criminals is "pushing the envelope" as opposed to the rest of the game?

There are a lot of changes made in GW2 that I think make it a better game (although I'm not saying making these changes to GW1 as it exists would make it a better game, GW2 was able to build around them).

The open persistent world is a boon in my view. Although the world felt a lot more shallow than what I was hoping for. Especially coming from WoW where so much content feel rich and deep, I can feel the history of the world, of the lore, of the location I'm in, it feels shaped by the events of the past and the events of the present. The characters I interact with, the quests I complete, they feel like part of a story, in GW2 it all feels very mechanical and shallow. When I play GW2 it feels shaped by lose threads of some minor grasps of a plot and a constant intrusion of game mechanics (Dynamic Events) which make areas feel more like they were designed around game mechanics rather than this is real online world I can get lost in. Some places suffer from this less (usually the racial cities, LA I dislike for some reason), but the immersion, the pull of this open world wasn't as strong as I was hoping. Still, I like wandering around large expansive areas and running into other players, I've probably spent more time exploring corners of maps in GW2 than I did in GW1, the emphasis on open world felt like everything had more of a use, more reason to experience it, more value to it. This, I partly attribute to it being persistant.

I find sPvP do be a lot worse than in GW1. I can't say why, but it just feels like chaos a lot of the time and I guess I don't like the current formats and the meta we have now. Class balance is taking far too long to advance to where it should be. WvW is also a dissapointment. Ignoring issues of culling, the population imbalances dramatically alter your experience. Zerging a keep makes me feel almost pointless, it's like I'm there for it, and madly shooting everything and anything, but at the end of the day it always feels like I'm brute forcing it. When you ninja something (either via a meser or hidden catapults) in a small group it's a lot of fun, but that's not actually PvP. Zerg combat is really unsatisfying and compared to FA, JQ or even AB, WvW is a big let down. It's too big to feel like a team or feel like individual strategy, skill and tactics matter much. There is only so much you or even a small group can accomplish and your opponent can just crush it with a force of 100 people. I enjoyed skilled games of FA far more, dealing with the enemy strategy or making your own plays, the smaller and balanced numbers resulted in a much more satisfying feeling. The scale of WvW is it's own worst enemy in almost every flaw I see in it (although it's also seen as a strength, it just comes with a massive cost and there's nothing else to fill that gap).

The story was the biggest let down. In my view, this is outright inferior to GW1. The original games didn't have the best story, but it's amazing how poor the GW2 story is. It's split up into all these different strands which are mutually exclusive from each other and it takes a very long time to see it all the first time, let alone a second or third time from a different path. The information divided into each path is important for other paths but never seen and the end result feels like a shallow, rushed, badly pieced together and terribly presented cluster* of garbage. I hated making choices, at least in GW1 i was able to explore the other choice later on, I never felt like it added much to the story, it just existed as a choice for the sake of catering to the "personal story" mantra. The cut scenes of GW1 were 1000 times better and the compact, single story with a single cohesive plot line that was the same for everyone resulted in a much stronger overrall narrative that made a lot more sense, felt a lot tighter and ended up being more entertaining and investing. It also had supplementary plots (which in GW2 seemed to become personal story plots) as side quests. So much of my personal story felt unimportant and small in scale compared to the GW1 story. The story of GW1 was better in every way I compare the two.

The general gameplay is more satisfying for me. Without having a party of eight all the time, my own actions are more important. It still feels like I have a monk with me (I'm my own monk I guess) so I don't miss them in my party although I do miss playing them. As bad as the ranger is currently in terms of balance, I still like this implementation of pets a lot better. Dungeons feel worse than GW1, although in many ways and strategies, they have that classic ArenaNet design fail that results in all the meta strategies to complete them revolving around gimmicks and what is now being called exploits. I never liked this in GW1 and I'm dissapointed that it's returning in GW2 (it's the consequence of not having tanks, instead of running around like headless chickens hoping you won't get hit, you find some cheesy trick or "exploit" to avoid aggro or focus it on one character over all others, usually involving the terrain or some obscure use of skills). In this sense, while dungeons feel similair to GW1, there are still some differences (because combat itself is different).

The RNG grind at end game, the constant catering pushing you towards the gem store for stones (and design decisions inconveniencing you with that as the sole logical reason) is dissapointing.

The removal of dual classes has strengthened the concept of your class. Instead of running around with a scythe or hammer, rangers always feel like rangers, they have an identity of their own. I hated that the best way to play some classes in GW1 was to mostly play them as something else (or some classes were better at other class builds than the primary class itself - N/Rt). I don't feel like ArenaNet has come through with their end of the bargain though. By removing dual classes they removed the ability to ignore all your underpowered and terrible class skills (there were and still are a lot of them in GW1) and use a secondary class with strong skills (or ones that covered your weaknesses). This creates depth and build variety. To compete with that, the new single class strategy needs to be very robust when it comes to ensuring all classes have viable weapon sets, traits and utilities that add a variety of fun, interesting and viable options to reward building a character and give a player interesting choices. When play my ranger, I want to have so many good skills I'm not sure which one to bring in my final slot, currently I look at my utility skills and I know at least half of them are garbage and the others are mostly niche. ArenaNet is failing really bad at this and progress to bring it to where it should be is painfully slow.

The TP is a lot better than Spamadam but the constant catering to the TP farmers, by making everything super RNG gambling and near impossible to reliably achieve on your own, makes me feel like so much of the itemisation of the end game is reserved for the super rich instead of those who actually play the game (and unfortunately, being super rich has more to do with playing the TP rather than playing the game).

Build diversity in the form of armour and trait/stat points is also a failure. It does create some diversity, but mostly it supports play styles rather than creating interesting decisions on it's own. It's also incredibly confusing and really unintuitive, full of hidden information. It's really difficult to figure out what is more efficient than something else whereas GW1 was relatively simple and easy to understand - and it had a lot more diversity. So they've made it more complicated but we've gained very little for all the additional complications.

In GW1 I saw playing through the story as my primary goal, it was rewarding in itself. In GW2 I have only done it once (although I came close a second time) and I mostly spend my time running dungeons or doing some WvW, but it's usually less satisfying than GW1 (although the combat in PvE feels better). Also, GW1 is light years ahead (not just seven or eight years) of GW2 when it comes to polish and bugs. GW2 felt like a beta for the first few months and even today it's saturated with bugs that shouldn't have made it to launch, never mind six months into launch.

I could say more but I've said more than enough.

It does seem like a console game more than a pc game, it's one of the only flaws.

Linfang, on 28 August 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

It's not so much that we're anti controller... let me give you an analogy.

The mouse and keyboard is the ferrari of game control. Preference aside, if you look into the statistics of button key response times, mouse range of movement etc, there's no argument that when speaking straight physics and stats, the KB/M combo is superior.

So I drive a ferrari.

Then some guy walks up, looks at my ferrari and goes "my VW bug is better."

He doesn't say "I like my VW bug better", he makes an absolute statement of fact, such as "play GW2 as it's MEANT to be played."

It doesn't bother me that HE likes his VW bug better, but if he's going to start acting like it IS superior, I'm going to show him the flaws in his reasoning.

Yes, some people PREFER a controller, but a KB/M is the PHYSICALLY superior controller.

Remember this?
http://guildwars2.mo...:article-239,2/

Quote

You jokers, you!

Thieves are no doubt VERY squishy and when my attention isn't focused elsewhere (i.e. I'm not fighting SOMEONE else) I can fight off a thief with my Engineer the vast majority of the time. Notice I said "fight off", meaning that I can get their health VERY low to the point where they have to run away from me and the fight to which point they stealth away and they're gone. But once I have my back turned, they're back full healed and bam they have me down.

For those who keep saying thieves are fine because they're squishy, no, no they are not fine. Stealth is an insanely good strategic mechanic. When you get to dictate when you want to engage or disengage a fight then you have a huge advantage. Anyone who argues otherwise is in serious denial. The element of surprise is a big advantage to have to overcome even a superior enemy. And having a reliable escape route makes stealth even more powerful.

So while thieves are definitely squishy, it's pretty much mitigated by stealth. Any decent player can easily take advantage of this, it's why most thieves go for high burst because they know that their fragility is easily compensated by stealth. Thieves control the fight without even needing CC abilities.

Not particularly. I agree the class is generally underpowered, but most of what you post is over exaggerated bull crap. If you made reasonable post perhaps anyone can discuss with you, but as of now your just posting alot of over exaggerated crying

Alent, on 19 December 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

If people don't want to be attacked, they should not enter a pvp area, there really is nothing else to even contemplate regarding this issue.

It's the one who is laughing at you as you chase clones.

I prefer to just sit about 50 yards away from Champions and yell "One day I'll get you!!!"

I find that if I can solo a champion or a really tough veteran using melee that I feel more accomplishing than getting the most rarest of rare in this game.