Originally posted by xKingdomx

Flaw No.1

You misspelt 'article' :P

 

In reply to the article itself...

(........wall of text)

#1 Skill Design

I think there are like 100? skill design that players know about, I don't think that is even remotely enough to make a decision. But saying there are two damage skill overlaps the combat relying on efficiency than timing is contradictoy ot your previous argumnts. Timing is required in targetting and aiming of attacks, you can't be efficient if you are just spamming everywhere.

You are contradicting yourself in this point.

  

Many words doesn't make it a well though argument. The propose flaws are even flaws in the first place, it is simply the author unwilling to accept the game design.

 not the same you ! Sorry about the flaws in my not-native english ! The article is as I a wrote not by me, and as such it doesn't really make sense to try to adress the author with a you here!

To all of you having a rather negative view on the article, or outright misunderstand and/or underestimate him, I think its fair to point out its an exercise from a forum admin trying to actual provide basic for discussion (and crying) for some of the things that could worry, and from his view alot have to do with PvP 

here is what the article ends with.

Check back next week for a top 10 list of awesome stuff in Guild Wars 2. It definitely does exist, but will it outweigh the bad? Will ArenaNet step up and address these flaws before release? Stay tuned =)

or from his first reply in the discussion:

Every game has flaws, and you shouldn't let them deter you. Focus more on the ratio of bad versus good, and watch for how the developers react to and address the flaws in their game. Remember that Guild Wars 2 isn't even in beta yet! Instead of feeling discouraged, stay tuned to watch how the developers tackle these issues.

I think its one of the wellwriten and wellthought cases of what can worry with GW2 , i don't agree with alot, but i think opinions like that is needed to put the Fanboism on sites like this in perspective. Btw I expect him to show up as a Huge GW2 fans in next weeks article,and  just playing devil advocate in this one.

I agree with the attribute aspect. GW2 doesn't need attribute points.

Originally posted by BlahTeeb

That is what I got out of the article. The game is too "hardcore" for the guy. There's a reason why GW1 had million dollar tournaments... it was built to be a very challenging and competitive game. :)

"Too hardcore"? :>

Team Quitter (QQ) was one of top competitive GW1 guilds, and quite famous and generally liked, too. It's pretty obvious that they have access to the GW2 alpha and that this article is based on experience. I have no doubts that their points are valid.

ArenaNet interviews Team Quitter:

http://www.guildwars.com/competitive/articles/interviews/oneononewithqq.php

So, yeah... don't dismiss valid, constructive critizism, guys. It's needed to help make a good game better, while i think fanboyism and hype can actually hurt a game. Just saying...

Originally posted by jondifool

To all of you having a rather negative view on the article, or outright misunderstand and/or underestimate him, I think its fair to point out its an exercise from a forum admin trying to actual provide basic for discussion (and crying) for some of the things that could worry, and from his view alot have to do with PvP 

here is what the article ends with.

Check back next week for a top 10 list of awesome stuff in Guild Wars 2. It definitely does exist, but will it outweigh the bad? Will ArenaNet step up and address these flaws before release? Stay tuned =)

or from his first reply in the discussion:

Every game has flaws, and you shouldn't let them deter you. Focus more on the ratio of bad versus good, and watch for how the developers react to and address the flaws in their game. Remember that Guild Wars 2 isn't even in beta yet! Instead of feeling discouraged, stay tuned to watch how the developers tackle these issues.

I think its one of the wellwriten and wellthought cases of what can worry with GW2 , i don't agree with alot, but i think opinions like that is needed to put the Fanboism on sites like this in perspective. Btw I expect him to show up as a Huge GW2 fans in next weeks article,and  just playing devil advocate in this one.

Well he could have posted 100 awesome things for GW2 for all I care. Still, I simply disagree with some of his points, as I said he complains the controls are hard because you can do spells while moving. I just loled.

Thanks for posting this!  I'm really looking forward to this game, and I want to know the good and bad.

It's interesting, if a bit over-thought.  The title of this thread should have been 'Article about the top 10 flaws of guild pvp combat in Guild Wars 2".

Much like raiding, I don't have time to get this deeply into team-based PvP, and will concentrate my time on the larger gameplay.  I hope they address the real issues in PvP for everyone else though, but I think we will need to see reviews from more people, as well as let ArenaNet get closer to launch before we freak out.  Sounds like they are still planning to work on the skill system from what teh article says.  I hope the devs read his detailed feedback.

I don't know whether I missed it when reading his post...but it seemed like he completely left out cross-profession combos from his analysis when discussing skills. I wonder if maybe competitive PvP'ers feel that cross-profession combos are no good for PvP or something? It seems like if he is complaining about skills being overly simple and not providing enough emergent play, cross-profession combos would definitely cure that at least to some extent. It's actually one of the things I'm most looking forward to about the combat / skill system.

Also, I feel like he's incorrect when talking about there being no real choices. Just because there is a "best" setup or a "best" skill for a particular situation doesn't mean choices are meaningless. You can't bring your entire toolbox with you to a fight or a match...so you're very likely going to encounter situations where you didn't bring the very best skill. You're going to have to make choices on how you want to play, and improvise when you aren't set up perfectly for a particular situation.

Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

point #6 is the biggest deal breaker for me on this game, but I guess they could technically change it later. Good to see an article about GW2 that brings concerns that i'm sure some well read people have. 

If anyone seriously is paying attention to the way this game is made,it is not a surprise to the WHY only one pvp mode.

A-Net is able to escape sub fees by cutting lots of corners and delivering less content.Then they sell you xpacs to bring the game up to par for content.Even then some things are left out entirely saving them LOTS of money.It is ALWAYS the same ,you get what you pay for.There is a reason that saying has been around for so long and used so often,i didn't just make it up.

However to be fair to A-Net lets see the finished product.Their game is already imo no better than a 7/10 ,it might remain there on release but if i see even more omissions in the game ,it will drop off in ratings.No mounts,no guild halls,1 pvp mode and several other ommssions is not so good a start for GW2.

One of the things i will be looking for is buildings and do they have insides,if not then VERY lazy,cheap game design.I know this was one of their cost saving ideas in GW1,so i get that gut feeling they will continue the trend.It is important to note becuase it is a huge factor in game immersion.

How the Event actually plays out is another factor we need to see.Example that infamous video the BOSS never moves,he goes through his scripted sequence then drops down.He is of no threat to the city at all,he is actually just like an instance boss.They spawn helpers sometimes but the main boss never moves. boss1 boss2 infamous boss

IMO it's not much of a boss fight if he is stationary.

Originally posted by Wizardry

Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

point #6 is the biggest deal breaker for me on this game, but I guess they could technically change it later. Good to see an article about GW2 that brings concerns that i'm sure some well read people have. 

If anyone seriously is paying attention to the way this game is made,it is not a surprise to the WHY only one pvp mode.

A-Net is able to escape sub fees by cutting lots of corners and delivering less content.Then they sell you xpacs to bring the game up to par for content.Even then some things are left out entirely saving them LOTS of money.It is ALWAYS the same ,you get what you pay for.There is a reason that saying has been around for so long and used so often,i didn't just make it up.

However to be fair to A-Net lets see the finished product.Their game is already imo no better than a 7/10 ,it might remain there on release but if i see even more omissions in the game ,it will drop off in ratings.No mounts,no guild halls,1 pvp mode and several other ommssions is not so good a start for GW2.

One of the things i will be looking for is buildings and do they have insides,if not then VERY lazy,cheap game design.I know this was one of their cost saving ideas in GW1,so i get that gut feeling they will continue the trend.It is important to note becuase it is a huge factor in game immersion.

How the Event actually plays out is another factor we need to see.Example that infamous video the BOSS never moves,he goes through his scripted sequence then drops down.He is of no threat to the city at all,he is actually just like an instance boss.They spawn helpers sometimes but the main boss never moves. boss1 boss2 infamous boss

IMO it's not much of a boss fight if he is stationary.

 

As far as the whole one PVP mode thing goes on. It only applies to Hot-JJoin/Tournament system as for now. There is still WvWvW PvP. Second thing is, A-Net said on several ocassions They will work on different game modes for Hot-Join but Domination is what comes on release. I'm pretty sure we might see CTF sometime later,  i could see Payload working as well (even more so, seeing as WoW adapts it in MoP) , Murderball could be possibility as well. It's all about how the whole competetive PvP willw ork out. I much prefer for them start with single mode and just polish the whole eSport/spectator side before adding different gamestyles to the system. 

When it ocmes to boss fight... i Think truly dynamic bosses are still not possible. Can You imagine aboss actually attacking a city? Can You imagine all the whining from random people that They can't do other stuff because silly boss ruins Their playtime? Yeah. Can't do. Bosses will most likely remain in single areas of a zone untill someone comes up with technological solution to the problem. 

Another reason is the fact that the encounter needs to be "availible". Rift had invasion bosses roaming along and it often was more of a pain than pleasure when they spawned on the other end of map and walked away, making it troublesome for people to catch up with them. Sure GW2 has the whole teleporting system, but then You also have factor in the fight specific mechanics. The cannons, the add spawns, the NPCs interaction... You can't really have the dragon flying around all over the place if You want to the fight as something more than tank and spank encounter. 

Majority of those complaints are not reallys omething i can comment without playing myself. I have no idea how strong the Elite skills actually are and that's something that can easily be adjust anyway. Similarly the whole "repetetivness" of skills... haven't got a chance to fool aorund with them so can't really tell whenever They would feel too much of same thing over and over again or not. OVerall there was very little subtance to those faults, and really i wish every MMO to have such minor flaws. Seen much worse. 

Originally posted by Wizardry

Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

point #6 is the biggest deal breaker for me on this game, but I guess they could technically change it later. Good to see an article about GW2 that brings concerns that i'm sure some well read people have. 

If anyone seriously is paying attention to the way this game is made,it is not a surprise to the WHY only one pvp mode.

A-Net is able to escape sub fees by cutting lots of corners and delivering less content.Then they sell you xpacs to bring the game up to par for content.Even then some things are left out entirely saving them LOTS of money.It is ALWAYS the same ,you get what you pay for.There is a reason that saying has been around for so long and used so often,i didn't just make it up.

However to be fair to A-Net lets see the finished product.Their game is already imo no better than a 7/10 ,it might remain there on release but if i see even more omissions in the game ,it will drop off in ratings.No mounts,no guild halls,1 pvp mode and several other ommssions is not so good a start for GW2.

One of the things i will be looking for is buildings and do they have insides,if not then VERY lazy,cheap game design.I know this was one of their cost saving ideas in GW1,so i get that gut feeling they will continue the trend.It is important to note becuase it is a huge factor in game immersion.

How the Event actually plays out is another factor we need to see.Example that infamous video the BOSS never moves,he goes through his scripted sequence then drops down.He is of no threat to the city at all,he is actually just like an instance boss.They spawn helpers sometimes but the main boss never moves. boss1 boss2 infamous boss

IMO it's not much of a boss fight if he is stationary.

 

about your concern on buildings 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQfprmoSRiI

All the flaws just went over my head. It got to a point that I got bored and couldn't read anymore. I personally do not understand the complaints, for me it seems like he wants GW1 and that's the only complaint he really had.

I can't get behind these "flaws", just too.... unproven to me.

I for one dont want GW1, I played it, liked it, but it wasn't a real mmo, and I think e-sport arena stuff is ok, but I find it boring and too repetitive...I prefer open world stuff, or as in GW2's case, their persistent 2 week WvWvW enviorment.

If I want to play fps stuff, I will play a fps game, as they are much better, since thats what they are made for.

If this game were in open beta I could understand an article liek this,  but since its not even in Closed Beta the premature ejaculation that is this article is rather sad.

Originally posted by Wizardry

Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

point #6 is the biggest deal breaker for me on this game, but I guess they could technically change it later. Good to see an article about GW2 that brings concerns that i'm sure some well read people have. 

If anyone seriously is paying attention to the way this game is made,it is not a surprise to the WHY only one pvp mode.

A-Net is able to escape sub fees by cutting lots of corners and delivering less content.Then they sell you xpacs to bring the game up to par for content.Even then some things are left out entirely saving them LOTS of money.It is ALWAYS the same ,you get what you pay for.There is a reason that saying has been around for so long and used so often,i didn't just make it up.

However to be fair to A-Net lets see the finished product.Their game is already imo no better than a 7/10 ,it might remain there on release but if i see even more omissions in the game ,it will drop off in ratings.No mounts,no guild halls,1 pvp mode and several other ommssions is not so good a start for GW2.

One of the things i will be looking for is buildings and do they have insides,if not then VERY lazy,cheap game design.I know this was one of their cost saving ideas in GW1,so i get that gut feeling they will continue the trend.It is important to note becuase it is a huge factor in game immersion.

How the Event actually plays out is another factor we need to see.Example that infamous video the BOSS never moves,he goes through his scripted sequence then drops down.He is of no threat to the city at all,he is actually just like an instance boss.They spawn helpers sometimes but the main boss never moves. boss1 boss2 infamous boss

IMO it's not much of a boss fight if he is stationary.

 

Apparently there are more PvP modes coming, the Conquest map was just one of the ones that they were ready to show.

Hard to find much to agree with in the article.  Number 2 was the closest to something that I would be concerned about in that combat can seem a bit busy with all the effects.  Even then, I've always been a spectator rather than a participant so it's harder to understand what's going on when you're just watching from the sidelines.

Pretty much everything else was either decrying the game for being too much a departure from the original or complaining about having too many options.  I loved the original but it's time to move on -- sorry, no sale.  And I'll never agree that having too many options is a bad thing.  So what if you can't look at an opponent in PvP and in .5 seconds, know everything about their style of play, they're strengths, weaknesses and likely tactics.  Honestly, suck it up and learn to adapt.  The whole game has been built around the concept of adapting to changing situations and adjusting your gameplay on the fly.  If that's a problem for someone, they really would be happier in another game.  Frankly, when I'm playing PvP, I think it will be very interesting identifying a warrior on the other side and not knowing whether he's going to charge me or open up with grotesque ranged AoE.  Anyone that needs to know that just by looking at an enemy rather than through learning it in combat, should stick simpler forms of PvP like WoW or Checkers.

There were also a couple of points that mentioned things that are contrary to my understanding of the way the game plays and sounded to me like the writer was just extrapolating from bits of information he gathered up and concluded that it amounts to suckage.  He may be right, but since I can't confirm whether or not his take on things is correct, I won't debate it.  I'll need to see what actually is going into the game before I complain about it.

There are negative things about GW2 that are actually known, but this writer fails to mention any of them.

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Somehow the poster seems to not understand the game.  Most of these problems are feautures i am looking forward to.

I agree.  No need for me to type what you said all over again. Thank you.

Originally posted by Wizardry

Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

point #6 is the biggest deal breaker for me on this game, but I guess they could technically change it later. Good to see an article about GW2 that brings concerns that i'm sure some well read people have. 

If anyone seriously is paying attention to the way this game is made,it is not a surprise to the WHY only one pvp mode.

A-Net is able to escape sub fees by cutting lots of corners and delivering less content.Then they sell you xpacs to bring the game up to par for content.Even then some things are left out entirely saving them LOTS of money.It is ALWAYS the same ,you get what you pay for.There is a reason that saying has been around for so long and used so often,i didn't just make it up.

However to be fair to A-Net lets see the finished product.Their game is already imo no better than a 7/10 ,it might remain there on release but if i see even more omissions in the game ,it will drop off in ratings.No mounts,no guild halls,1 pvp mode and several other ommssions is not so good a start for GW2.

One of the things i will be looking for is buildings and do they have insides,if not then VERY lazy,cheap game design.I know this was one of their cost saving ideas in GW1,so i get that gut feeling they will continue the trend.It is important to note becuase it is a huge factor in game immersion.

How the Event actually plays out is another factor we need to see.Example that infamous video the BOSS never moves,he goes through his scripted sequence then drops down.He is of no threat to the city at all,he is actually just like an instance boss.They spawn helpers sometimes but the main boss never moves. boss1 boss2 infamous boss

IMO it's not much of a boss fight if he is stationary.

 

I'm actually LOATHE to agree with Wizardry on any point, but the stationary boss fights are something that I would mark down as a negative on my own personal scorecard.  Once the ooh and ahh factor is over with upon seeing a monster that fucking big monopolizing your screen real estate, the fights seem to settle to a bit of a simmer rather than raise to a boil.

Of course, the article doesn't mention this and instead chooses to call attention to nonsense like it not being enough like GW1.

Aren't most of these problems things that get addressed in beta?  And this game isnt really even in a public beta so some of their issues arent even really "issues" until the game gets closer to launch.

They are some good point and the rea

Originally posted by Unlight

There are negative things about GW2 that are actually known, but this writer fails to mention any of them.

Well, he did mention that you can't choose your skills for your weapon, and that is my top complain (At least let me pick 5 out of 10 or so for each weapon).

But I think he is kinda right in several cases. The game needs some polish up on a few things still. Attributes aren't really optimal, I have a feeling they will be revamped either before launch or in the first year. There probably will need to be some ways to see if certain spells like wall of flames are friendly or not. Removing the energy cost of skills might have created some issues.

There is small stuff like that, I am sure they will get fixed eventually thoughburt you can't expect a MMO launching with this much innovation without some smaller stuff that will be fixed eventually.

I can't think of a MMO that havn't changed any mechanics during it's time and there are always bound to be stuff that needs some polishing.

The important thing is if the game is fun enough so it is worth playing anyways while they fix it up and I think it is.