Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

I think given Anet's pre-release hype, we expected them to be a little more complex and on a larger scale.  Most of them are just 2 or 3 different states repeated ad nauseum.  Defend camp, retake camp, repeat, with no wider zone implications if players win or lose.  To me it feels no more dynamic than War and even a little less than Rift.     

I don't know which pre-release hype you're referring to, but I knew beforehand that there's 1000+ events in the game.  They were also announced to be persistent, not permanent, and cyclical in nature. Considering the size of the zones that is a lacking number. ANet was asked if they could bump it up a notch so events wouldn't be ultimately cyclical, to which Colin replied that for that to be possible they'd have to hire more event designers.

I can't say I am on first name terms with the developers, I don't lunch with them that often, so I'll bow down to your greater insight. 

Lol.

Anyway, everything I said can be found here:

http://www.arena.net/blog/colin-johanson-answers-your-dynamic-event-questions

It's a 2010 article.

"If we wanted every event we designed to run only once, we’d need to hire approximately 100,000 people to make enough events to fill GW2."

"Dynamic events are cyclical in nature, yes."

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

I think given Anet's pre-release hype, we expected them to be a little more complex and on a larger scale.  Most of them are just 2 or 3 different states repeated ad nauseum.  Defend camp, retake camp, repeat, with no wider zone implications if players win or lose.  To me it feels no more dynamic than War and even a little less than Rift.     

I don't know which pre-release hype you're referring to, but I knew beforehand that there's 1000+ events in the game.  They were also announced to be persistent, not permanent, and cyclical in nature. Considering the size of the zones that is a lacking number. ANet was asked if they could bump it up a notch so events wouldn't be ultimately cyclical, to which Colin replied that for that to be possible they'd have to hire more event designers.

I can't say I am on first name terms with the developers, I don't lunch with them that often, so I'll bow down to your greater insight. 

Lol.

Anyway, everything I said can be found here:

http://www.arena.net/blog/colin-johanson-answers-your-dynamic-event-questions

It's a 2010 article.

"If we wanted every event we designed to run only once, we’d need to hire approximately 100,000 people to make enough events to fill GW2."

"Dynamic events are cyclical in nature, yes."

We all knew they would have to be cyclical, that's a given.  I wonder where the 'large event chains' are?  These are what I was expecting and failed to find in game. 

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

I think given Anet's pre-release hype, we expected them to be a little more complex and on a larger scale.  Most of them are just 2 or 3 different states repeated ad nauseum.  Defend camp, retake camp, repeat, with no wider zone implications if players win or lose.  To me it feels no more dynamic than War and even a little less than Rift.     

I don't know which pre-release hype you're referring to, but I knew beforehand that there's 1000+ events in the game.  They were also announced to be persistent, not permanent, and cyclical in nature. Considering the size of the zones that is a lacking number. ANet was asked if they could bump it up a notch so events wouldn't be ultimately cyclical, to which Colin replied that for that to be possible they'd have to hire more event designers.

I can't say I am on first name terms with the developers, I don't lunch with them that often, so I'll bow down to your greater insight. 

Lol.

Anyway, everything I said can be found here:

http://www.arena.net/blog/colin-johanson-answers-your-dynamic-event-questions

It's a 2010 article.

"If we wanted every event we designed to run only once, we’d need to hire approximately 100,000 people to make enough events to fill GW2."

"Dynamic events are cyclical in nature, yes."

We all knew they would have to be cyclical, that's a given.  I wonder where the 'large event chains' are?  These are what I was expecting and failed to find in game. 

Harathi Hinterlands have the largest event chains, go there.

Originally posted by Scarfe

We all knew they would have to be cyclical, that's a given.  I wonder where the 'large event chains' are?  These are what I was expecting and failed to find in game. 

Most faction warfare events, I guess. Orr and the Centaurs are the famous ones, but there's also Flame Legion and the Branded. They're not as fun as they could've been and definitely something I'd like ANet to improve in the future. Especially Orr. That place is a mess.

Come to think of it, Orr's problem is that it's too dynamic. The whole area is a huge event chain and that causes major problems, like player population being very/too important, victory causing a boring stalemate with nothing for players to do and losing causing the whole area to become practically inaccessible via waypoint travel.

Originally posted by Scalpless

Originally posted by Scarfe

We all knew they would have to be cyclical, that's a given.  I wonder where the 'large event chains' are?  These are what I was expecting and failed to find in game. 

Most faction warfare events, I guess. Orr and the Centaurs are the famous ones, but there's also Flame Legion and the Branded. They're not as fun as they could've been and definitely something I'd like ANet to improve in the future. Especially Orr. That place is a mess.

Yeah Orr need to be made less chaotic. Need bigger battles, siege weapons, castles and sea warfare.

Originally posted by InFlamestwo

Originally posted by dimnikar

Originally posted by InFlamestwo

Dynamic only mean something is moving, it's changing. Static it's always the same, standing still.

Quests in other games, the npc stays at the same place 24/7, all mobs at the same place, same objectives etc.

Dynamic Events are dynamic and the combat is more dynamic than anything.

WoW has moving quest givers as well as patroling mobs. So by your definition, WoW beat GW2 to being dynamic by about 8 years?

 

OBVIOUSLY, that's not what dynamic means in this context. GW2 has branching events which are basically auto-accepted chain quests with (very few) branching paths. Note that the auto-accept part is the extent of innovation here.

 

But when you say it like that, instead of using a fancy word like Dynamic Events; who's gonna care? Hype rules this industry. People are so easily misled.

The world doesn't change does it? mobs in WoW move, but they always walk at the same place, npcs handing out the same quest/s.

What i meant is dynamic events move forward, like a tree and it branches and changes the world around them and what mobs are there and the objectives of the dynamic events.

WoW is a horrible game, Blizzard should feel ashamed.

It doesn't change in GW2, either. Besides having the 2, sometimes 3 ways an event can end, it's the same thing as an auto-accepted chain, technically. It's laughable how they managed to spin that into a whole thing as if it's an interesting feature.

Hell, WoW phasing changes the world more than anything in GW2 does, and more permanently so at that.

Honestly, though, anyone here really feels like this simplistic  DE quest system is where the industry is headed?

Originally posted by meddyck
Your perception is correct. Events are only minimally dynamic and there are far too few of them. This becomes especially clear if you repeat a zone on a different character (for instance if you roll a new class). They are still an improvement over quest hubs with quest givers with a ! over their heads in most respects, but it will take another few generations of MMOs before this kind of thing achieves its full potential.

I always thought that dynamic (or static if you prefer) events were an addition to quest hubs as in previous games (WAR, Rift), and hearts were the replacement. 

Hearts to me are over symplistic, they remove any interraction and sense of 'belonging' in a zone.  I always enjoyed quest hubs, I enjoyed the ability of an mmo to follow a coherent story arc through individual quests (although this has always been under-utilised), I enjoyed having my home from home in whatever zone I was in, and the interraction with other players that came from simply bumping into them more than once.  I also enjoyed stumbling upon that occasional quest-giver hidden in some unexpected corner of the map.  Hearts for me went a step too far and were an unecessary simplification.   

Originally posted by dimnikar

Originally posted by InFlamestwo

Originally posted by dimnikar

Originally posted by InFlamestwo

Dynamic only mean something is moving, it's changing. Static it's always the same, standing still.

Quests in other games, the npc stays at the same place 24/7, all mobs at the same place, same objectives etc.

Dynamic Events are dynamic and the combat is more dynamic than anything.

WoW has moving quest givers as well as patroling mobs. So by your definition, WoW beat GW2 to being dynamic by about 8 years?

 

OBVIOUSLY, that's not what dynamic means in this context. GW2 has branching events which are basically auto-accepted chain quests with (very few) branching paths. Note that the auto-accept part is the extent of innovation here.

 

But when you say it like that, instead of using a fancy word like Dynamic Events; who's gonna care? Hype rules this industry. People are so easily misled.

The world doesn't change does it? mobs in WoW move, but they always walk at the same place, npcs handing out the same quest/s.

What i meant is dynamic events move forward, like a tree and it branches and changes the world around them and what mobs are there and the objectives of the dynamic events.

WoW is a horrible game, Blizzard should feel ashamed.

It doesn't change in GW2, either. Besides having the 2, sometimes 3 ways an event can end, it's the same thing as an auto-accepted chain, technically. It's laughable how they managed to spin that into a whole thing as if it's an interesting feature.

 

Hell, WoW phasing changes the world more than anything in GW2 does, and more permanently so at that.

 

Honestly, though, anyone here really feels like this simplistic  DE quest system is where the industry is headed?

Yes the DE system in GW2 doesn't give you the full potential it could if it's made right, but it's 100x better than Quests in the standard mmorpgs. In 2-3 years i'm sure ArenaNet have continued to develop their DE system and can make better DEs than the current ones, more sanboxy and random DEs, hopefully, combined with other features they will bring to the game. Personal isntances,  guildhalls, ships etc and better crafting.

WoWs phasing disconnects you from everyone else, it's instanced. It's a good system to tell stories with the quest system they have. GW2 already have Personal Stories that is equivalent to WoWs phasing system.

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

A million times this.

I really don't see where the confusion and disappointment is coming from.  What was going to happen (excluding fotm) always seemed to be damned clear to me, not like they were hiding it.

I got exactly what I was expecting with GW2, and I love it.  I just wish there were more events, more skills, and more time for me to play.

Originally posted by madazz

I don't find anything in GW2 to be dynamic. I always thought dynamic meant "ever changing" and static always meant "always the same". 

The events for instance, they aren't very random, they are always the same ones, and they always do the same thing. That doesn't feel dynamic to me at all! Now to be fair, I didn't play too far in the game. I think I leveled up to may 30 or 40 before growing bored. Too me the game was more of the same except now my quests were in that undiscovered part of the map where  a quest giver would of typically sent me anyways. I even found combat to be pretty well much the same.

Now GW2 is an alright game, at least up until the point I played. But does it get better? Does it get truly dynamic? I am going to play it again one day (Yay B2P), so I'll eventually find out for myself. But it'll be a long while off.

 

There is nothing dynamic or ever changing about GW2. Changes are temporary and is nothing more than a gimmick to fool more people into buying GW2.

Originally posted by Baitness

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

A million times this.

I really don't see where the confusion and disappointment is coming from.  What was going to happen (excluding fotm) always seemed to be damned clear to me, not like they were hiding it.

I got exactly what I was expecting with GW2, and I love it.  I just wish there were more events, more skills, and more time for me to play.

The confusion is quite simple, people are naive and in some cases downright stupid; expecting MMO AI to accomplish something that even the most advanced supercomputers in the world can't do.

Only thing you can do is ignore these people, as they jump from one "disappointment" to another.

Originally posted by tv2zulu

Originally posted by Baitness

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

A million times this.

I really don't see where the confusion and disappointment is coming from.  What was going to happen (excluding fotm) always seemed to be damned clear to me, not like they were hiding it.

I got exactly what I was expecting with GW2, and I love it.  I just wish there were more events, more skills, and more time for me to play.

The confusion is quite simple, people are naive and in some cases downright stupid; expecting MMO AI to accomplish something that even the most advanced supercomputers in the world can't do.

Only thing you can do is ignore these people, as they jump from one "disappointment" to another.

Why bother?  Just ignore the thread if you don't like it but don't come onto it trolling. 

The dynamic thing is mostly hype. The "dynamic" events are just quest chains with different outcomes, that's it. If you want to call that dynamic then there you go.

Anyway, it's 2013 and this game is so 2012.

Well OP, the word "dynamic" in games is mostly advertising speak. And it is mostly the same in GW2 as in Rift. Dynamic events are not very well done imo, and get repetative very fast. I understand it is hard to do such things in MMORPGs, but Arenanet  was just a little bit too optimistic with their forecasts.

I remember them saying, that whole zones will change if an event fails/succeeds. Ehrm, no, that was just a lie. For example sometimes zentaurs will overrun a camp, but after 15 minutes the event will start again and then maybe the humans will be victorious. The only thing that changes, are some unimportant vendors or npcs which will not be there for the next few minutes.

I think one of the main problems there was, that if they would really change the zones and zentaurs or dragons would leave behind nothing but scorched earth, some people would get out their pitchforks and rampage at the forums, why they cant do their boring heart-quests anymore.

In my humble opinion, Arenanet just took the easy way, tried to satisfy everyone and left the events with no real impact on the world. Thats a shame. There would have been great possibilities with that feature.

But well, the sales numbers prove them right. Most people unfortunately dont want real dynamics in games, as long as they could mean any disadvantages for them.

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by tv2zulu

Originally posted by Baitness

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

A million times this.

I really don't see where the confusion and disappointment is coming from.  What was going to happen (excluding fotm) always seemed to be damned clear to me, not like they were hiding it.

I got exactly what I was expecting with GW2, and I love it.  I just wish there were more events, more skills, and more time for me to play.

The confusion is quite simple, people are naive and in some cases downright stupid; expecting MMO AI to accomplish something that even the most advanced supercomputers in the world can't do.

Only thing you can do is ignore these people, as they jump from one "disappointment" to another.

Why bother?  Just ignore the thread if you don't like it but don't come onto it trolling. 

Trolling?

He speaks the truth and you know it.

Originally posted by gwei1984

Well OP, the word "dynamic" in games is mostly advertising speak. And it is mostly the same in GW2 as in Rift. Dynamic events are not very well done imo, and get repetative very fast. I understand it is hard to do such things in MMORPGs, but Arenanet  was just a little bit too optimistic with their forecasts.

 

I remember them saying, that whole zones will change if an event fails/succeeds. Ehrm, no, that was just a lie. For example sometimes zentaurs will overrun a camp, but after 15 minutes the event will start again and then maybe the humans will be victorious. The only thing that changes, are some unimportant vendors or npcs which will not be there for the next few minutes.

I think one of the main problems there was, that if they would really change the zones and zentaurs or dragons would leave behind nothing but scorched earth, some people would get out their pitchforks and rampage at the forums, why they cant do their boring heart-quests anymore.

In my humble opinion, Arenanet just took the easy way, tried to satisfy everyone and left the events with no real impact on the world. Thats a shame. There would have been great possibilities with that feature.

But well, the sales numbers prove them right. Most people unfortunately dont want real dynamics in games, as long as they could mean any disadvantages for them.

Yes whiners and lazy gamers did ruin this game.

In beta1 there were no hearts on the map and people whined that they felt lost so Anet put them in.

In beta1 the DEs were hard and did change some zones but whiners and lazy people cried that it was to hard to play so Anet dumbed it down.

Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by tv2zulu

Originally posted by Baitness

Originally posted by Trueforral1

I found it surprising that so many were disappointed by the so-called 'dynamic events.' It was evident from the beginning that the only way to achieve the intended dynamics was through running events in a circular fashion, at its most complex where multiple individual circular chains intersect and interact.

That's pretty much all one can hope to achieve without the use of a live game-master fashioning the events in real-time.

A million times this.

I really don't see where the confusion and disappointment is coming from.  What was going to happen (excluding fotm) always seemed to be damned clear to me, not like they were hiding it.

I got exactly what I was expecting with GW2, and I love it.  I just wish there were more events, more skills, and more time for me to play.

The confusion is quite simple, people are naive and in some cases downright stupid; expecting MMO AI to accomplish something that even the most advanced supercomputers in the world can't do.

Only thing you can do is ignore these people, as they jump from one "disappointment" to another.

Why bother?  Just ignore the thread if you don't like it but don't come onto it trolling. 

 

Trolling?

He speaks the truth and you know it.

Read through the thread.  Very few people expected something unrealistic, just something more engaging than the static events provided.  Naive and stupid; not on the basis of the vast majority of the posts I have read, just a well-mannered debate until we get posts like this.