Originally posted by kevjards

...and also GW2 will be f2p as well wont it?

I think they're calling GW2 B2P (buy to play) to distinguish it from games that you pay nothing whatsoever to play.

Admitedly once I saw the Manifesto video for the first time I was hooked and thought GW2 was the holy grail of MMO's.  Since that time though reality has set in and I'm sure it will be a fun game to play, perhaps even revolutionary in some aspects, but I'm not expecting it to be the end-all-be-all of MMO's.  However, given that there's no monthly fee, I have nothing really to lose by trying it.

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

Originally posted by Sixpax

Originally posted by Malaksbane

Why would there be queues?

You're still thinking in terms of 'one mmo-server' == 'one machine'

No, actually I'm not.  Today's server virtualization technology could certainly give them the capability of adding/removing hardware to support the demand on a particular world.  However, it isn't an issue of performance but rather practicality.  Consider if say 25,000 people all wanted to login at once on a particular world on launch day.  Assuming the best case of the 5 (one per race) starter areas having an even population distribution, that's still 5,000 people per starter area.  Assuming the server hardware runs that smoothly, it's still going to create problems for the client, and each zone would be so overcrowded that it would ruin the experience for everyone.  For example, you know the event they showed a demo of in one of the starter areas where you have to help the farmer... image 300 people all trying to pack in there and do that event at the same time.  That would be ugly, even if your PC could draw all 300 players smoothly (which is doubtful).

The only way I know of to allow everyone to login at the same time without queues, without client lag, and without overcrowding is instancing.  That way they can control how many people are in a particular area at a time.

The point he was trying to make is that Guild Wars handled this just fine, and as far as I know they're going to have server clusters in GW2 just as they did in 1. Meaning, when a portion of the world gets over-crowded, another instance of it opens up. There were times in GW1 where there were 20+ instances, not including international zones, of a particular outpost. If one was too crowded for you, you just select from the pulldone and pick one further down the list. It's all automated, so new instances of the zone instantly appear when population is heavy, and likewise they disappear when the population starts spreading out/logging off.

I was unaware they were going to do instancing of zones in GW2.  Got a link to that info please?

Originally posted by Malaksbane

Why would there be queues?

You're still thinking in terms of 'one mmo-server' == 'one machine'

No, actually I'm not.  Today's server virtualization technology could certainly give them the capability of adding/removing hardware to support the demand on a particular world.  However, it isn't an issue of performance but rather practicality.  Consider if say 25,000 people all wanted to login at once on a particular world on launch day.  Assuming the best case of the 5 (one per race) starter areas having an even population distribution, that's still 5,000 people per starter area.  Assuming the server hardware runs that smoothly, it's still going to create problems for the client, and each zone would be so overcrowded that it would ruin the experience for everyone.  For example, you know the event they showed a demo of in one of the starter areas where you have to help the farmer... image 300 people all trying to pack in there and do that event at the same time.  That would be ugly, even if your PC could draw all 300 players smoothly (which is doubtful).

The only way I know of to allow everyone to login at the same time without queues, without client lag, and without overcrowding is instancing.  That way they can control how many people are in a particular area at a time.

I decided to pass on SWTOR because it didn't appeal to me after watching the videos on it and reading about the game play.  Rift is currently occupying my time until GW2's relase though.  It does have an element of dynamic content to it so that's about as close as I'm going to get to GW2 for now, but I have no intention of playing it once open beta for GW2 starts.

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by Sixpax

Actually I'm not suggesting at all that the game will have people leaving in droves as I fully expect an increase over time, but that's different than the problem of simultaneous logins being very high during the first few days of launch and then tapering off as play times (and therefore server populations) normalize.  So even if the overall playerbase is steadily increasing they could very well wind up with too many servers if they try to support the launch day logins.

Also, it's not so much how many players a zone can support, but rather how many people can even login to a server at the same time.

I think I'm understanding you, you're saying there's going to be an initial rush, and then as people begin to play less over time, the server might end up essentially half populated.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

The thing is, I don't know that server populations will diminish uniformly.   Like when people first get the game, the average North American user might play from 6pm to 2am at first, because they're playing the game as much as they can.  But it seems like to me that even though they'll start playing less, there's still going to be a peak.  Like eventually the average player will tone it down until they only play for two hours per day, for example again, say on average between 7pm and 9pm.  That peak won't be as high as the initial surge, but I think would still be pretty high. 

I would think that a server would still be rated high population based on what their peak tends to be during the day, because they wouldn't want people running into a queue during prime playtime.  In other words, if a server fills up to high during the initial surge, it seems to me like it would stay at least medium-high as long as people don't flee the game.

What do you think?

Yes, we're on the same page.  I think your assessment would be correct if popluations were fairly well distributed across all servers.  The problem is regardless of how many servers ANET starts with, on launch day some servers will be overcrowded (usually the ones that major guilds advertise they are going to) while others will have medium-to-low populations.  The result is they'll probably have queues on the former and have to do eventual mergers on the latter.

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by Sixpax

Account issues could still be a problem regardless of how they incorporate them.  Remember early on Rift was plagued by a flaw in their account security which lead to numerous accounts being hacked due to no fault of the player whatsoever.  That lead to a several day wait for some players while Trion recovered their accounts.  Not saying that will happen to GW2, but it just goes to show you can't take anything for granted.

As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2.  I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does.  I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?).  They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.

First paragraph...definitely.  Until we have the game in our hands, there's no way to know for sure about anything.  I think ArenaNet has been great with updates and the extensive demo experience, but whether it's bugs or just some unforeseen problem which makes the game not so fun, we should all keep reasonable expectations and just hope they'll be exceeded.

Second paragraph... three things.

First, it's not a subscription game, so it's not like people are going to cancel their accounts in droves.  Hopefully there's no glaring problem making people put it down, but even if they do, it'll be a lot easier to get people to give it another try since they won't have to start paying again.

Second, I would predict growth, actually.  GW2 isn't so well known an IP that everybody is going to preorder it and it's got nowhere to go but down.  The gameplay should get people to get their friends who initially were opposed (due to not liking GW1 or whatever) to try it.  Because it's a B2P game, people could just buy a copy for their stubborn friend.  Not that having multiple instances of a zone is even a bad idea, I just think they can put up a ton of servers and expect they might fill up instead of shut down over time.

Third, because of the nonlinear nature of the zones, I think it can support more people than a typical MMO.  In this post, Eric Flannum talks about having 200+ people in a company alpha test all enter a zone at the exact same time and it's no problem.  That's 1000 people over all races, so it's possible they could just weather the initial surge.

 

Actually I'm not suggesting at all that the game will have people leaving in droves as I fully expect an increase over time, but that's different than the problem of simultaneous logins being very high during the first few days of launch and then tapering off as play times (and therefore server populations) normalize.  So even if the overall playerbase is steadily increasing they could very well wind up with too many servers if they try to support the launch day logins.

Also, it's not so much how many players a zone can support, but rather how many people can even login to a server at the same time.

Originally posted by Alot

1. Well, Guardian and Warrior are indeed THE classes that can handle damage. And Water Elementalists focus on support (of which healing is a part). But you must understand that Dungeons don't cater to to the holy trinity. I read in a dungeon preview about how a group of five players (two of which were developers) took on a Giant Spider boss, the Warrior and the Guardian engaged the Spider and they both got one-hitted, they only managed to kill the boss by using the hybrid model and the special mechanics that make every class unique. And you know, the preview was written by someone who was excited for GW2 but who was also a longterm MMORPG player, and guess what? He loved it despite the lack of dedicated roles. While I understand that many people don't feel comfortable with being a jack-of-all-trades, I still hope that everyone will at least try to play this way (WAY TOO LONG COMMENT, /faceslap).

Your spider boss example actually brings up another fear of mine along the same lines... as we've all seen I'm sure, there are a large number of MMO players who really aren't all that skilled.  They are adept at moving out of harms way when needed and hitting their combat macros otherwise.  However, having to switch roles on-the-fly and be constantly moving while simultaneously using various skills would be beyond their capability.  How will they fare in GW2?  I know the natural reaction to that question is just to brush them off and say "L2P", but I suspect it's a lot more people than you might think.

3. I know, I've seen it in the Rift beta and In SW:TOR. I recall that in Rift the WoW-fans were mostly ignored until they finally shut up. I think we will mostly see the WoWer-rage in the open beta and possibly early launch, but if ArenaNet lets them talk to the hand they will eventually shut up. And I don't really see ANet giving in to the WoWers, because the developers seem much more averse towards the traditional WoW-style gameplay than for example Bioware's or Trion's developers.

On the contrary, Rift is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  There's a very long list of changes they've made to appease the WoW cry babies (dungeon finder, auto-despawning invasions, greatly reducing the probability of being dismounted when attacked, and so on).  The only reason they shut up was because they got their way.  It's an embarrassment.

Originally posted by Alot

1 and 2. I think that the only cases where the holy trinity is still useable would large dynamic events and elite events. Especially with the different AI tactics fully implemented these events are probably just too much too handle for solo players, trying to tackle them solo will probably result in failing an event. This is where the holy trinity could still be used. In the harder areas of the game however the traditionalists will simply have to adapt.

3. If people want a WoWlike, endgame-centric MMORPG, then why aren't they playing WoW/Rift or SW:TOR? There are plenty of traditional MMORPGs out there, so why would they bother with GW2? The fact that these players want to try out/play GW2 proves to me that they no longer desire the geargrind of traditional MMORPGs.

4. If you were to tag all mobs in the area by attacking you would probably get killed as your movement speed decreases once you have your weapons unsheathed. And we don't know at what point mobs will lose interest. Besides killing mobs provides very little xp, most xp is gained by completing dynamic events/personal story quests/or completing daily feats. And even if people were to powerlevel, would that matter? They would only be burning through content and the money they spent on the game would be wasted. And I don't think killing mobs is a good way to make money because there is now a working crafting system (unlike in GW1).

5. Okay, okay, you are spot on. This will depend on ANet's way of dealing with goldselling.

6. ANet never had official general forums, although they opened an official support forum for GW1 this year. Before that, people came to GWGuru, the largest fansite of GW1 and one of the few sites where the Developers would regularly post.

7. Will GW1 was hard to balance because of its dual-class system, for a significant time it was still considered to have the most balanced online PVP as an MMOlike game. GW2 will probably be easier to balance so I do not think this will be a problem.

8. If the optimizer crowd dominates the PvE-side of the game, and I do not believe this will happen, then you could still do group-based content with your guild or switch to smaller servers while retaining your characters (ANet wants players to be able to easily switch servers, just like in GW1).

Thanks for the dialog Alot, it's refreshing compared to what usually happens on these forums lol.  Anyway, on to my reply...

As far as #1, I'm not implying that there needs to be some form of the holy trinity to embrace those who like playing dedicated roles, but rather experssing a concern that there may not be a fun profession for them in GW2.  For instance, do you think the Guardian or Warrior profession will appeal to those who like playing tanks, and some other role (Water Elem maybe) appeal to those who like playing healers?  Or will those individuals be completely turned off?  I have to admit that I typically am drawn to the dedicated healer role and to a lesser extent the dedicated tank role in traditional MMO's, and as much as I'm looking forward to GW2, I can't help but be a bit concerned that the hybrid-only approach may not appeal to me.

For #2, I'm not suggesting that the content will be done solo but rather that people will do the content as a group of individuals instead of using teamwork.  Hopefully, teamwork will be required so everyone is helping each other, but that will depend on how self sufficient they make each profession.  So say 50 people are attacking a dragon, and they can complete the event with nothing but self heals and other personal skills, then teamwork goes completely out the window.

I'm in complete agreement with you on #3, but my fear is how vocal those who came from WoW will be when they don't get their shiny and the nerdrage becomes legendary.  Every post-WoW MMO that I've played has had a subset of the players try to turn it into WoW 2.0.  It's beyond stupid, but even worse is when the Devs try to appease them.

On #4, I'm not suggesting that someone might tag the mobs and run around while other people kill them, but rather someone running around an area looking for mobs that other players have pulled, just to do 5% damage with one attack and getting rewarded for basically doing nothing... or casting an AoE on mobs that a group of other players are killing and leeching off their efforts.  I realize ANET is trying very hard to prevent players from not wanting to play alongside and with each other, but I fear they might be trading one problem (kill stealing) for another (leeching).  The latter of the two is much easier to stomach since they won't be taking anything from the person doing all the work, but think about how much people loathe leechers in a PvP battleground for instance?  Will it be the same for GW2 PvE?

Account issues could still be a problem regardless of how they incorporate them.  Remember early on Rift was plagued by a flaw in their account security which lead to numerous accounts being hacked due to no fault of the player whatsoever.  That lead to a several day wait for some players while Trion recovered their accounts.  Not saying that will happen to GW2, but it just goes to show you can't take anything for granted.

As far as server queues, I'm actually planning that to be an issue for GW2.  I really don't see any way around it without doing some form of (temporary) instancing like RoM does.  I know some people get turned off by the idea, but to me it's better than having overpopulated servers at launch followed by server mergers later on (Warhammer anyone?).  They can always narrow it down to just 1 instance later on when populations normalize.

Originally posted by Alot

Originally posted by Sixpax

I'm not saying this is how things are going to turn out, but these are my fears nonetheless:

1. Even though I like the idea of no tank or healer, there is a certain % of the MMO crowd that enjoys playing dedicated roles.  My fear is ANET is going to alienate a good portion of them.  Hopefully there are roles that aren't dedicated to those functions but still gives those players the same level of satisfaction. By reading the previews of the Dungeons in GW2 it seems as if you are able to play the Story Mode with the holy trinity. The explorable mode however seems to be extremely deadly towards people playing it traditional however.  I think you're agreeing with me here, maybe?  People who like playing dedicated healers/tanks will be turned off by the game being "extremely deadly towards" them.  Will GW2 appeal to them in some other way or will ANET lose those customers?  That would be tragic IMO because it isn't the majority of players but isn't an insignificant number of players either.
2. There will be too many people who could care less about working as a team during dynamic events and strictly go straight DPS, not bothering to do any support (healing, protecting, debuffing, ressing, etc.).  Eventually that becomes the norm and despite ANET's best efforts, it's every man for himself. Dynamic Events are supposed to be casual and not require a large amount of planning. In the smaller events I suspect it may be very well possible to play solo. But in the Elite Events and larger events I do get the idea that teamwork is required if you want to be able to hold your ground.  Since ANET has made the classes self sufficient (self heals, shields, damage mitigation, etc) in lieu of having dedicated healers/tanks, do you really think it will require people working together as a team or just everyone participating and worrying about themselves instead of others?
3. ANET caves to the whinners who complain that there's no "end game" at level 80 and turns this into a gear-based and raid/instance-focused game for fear of losing players.  As sad as it is to say, Blizzard has brain washed people into thinking it's all about the gear, and I fear the WoW-was-my-first-MMO crowd will be very vocal. The thing is, the people who like WoWs gameplay are still fixated on WoW, or are playing Rift/SW:TOR. But you can see that such gameplay is starting to become boring. I also believe that such gameplay is that what is stopping the MMO market from growing. It doesn't appeal to a lot of people: many people are bored my MMORPGs or don't want to invest so much time/money in a game which is there for their enjoyment.  So do you think once the majority of the players are level 80 and have done pretty much all the events several times and gotten bored with the repitition of WvWvW, will they just want to keep playing for the fun of it or will they become selfish/greedy and need the carrot to keep them interested?
4. The revolutionary mechanics of no kill/loot stealing that ANET is introducing will be heavily exploitable. First of all there is a damage threshold which you need to pass in order to be eligible for loot. This threshold is 5%   of the mobs health, while most of your attacks will do more damage than that 5%. If you want to exploit these mechanics you will need so much organization that it will probably be more efficient to play solo or in small teams.  So if I'm in an area with a lot of players killing mobs, will I level faster running around tagging/AoEing them for that 5% and doing little else or doing 1 mob at a time by myself?  Either that or having 2 or 3 man groups pulling mobs en mass and power leveling in hours not days.  Not saying that will be the case, but it is a fear.
5. Gold/RMT spammers.  Hopefully there won't be any trial accounts so they'll have to pay for a new copy of the game each time they get banned. We won't know if there will be trial accounts until ArenaNet announces them. But I do know that ANet and NCSoft have got a rather agressive stance on goldselling. And I don't think goldselling will be a problem since gold is relatively easy to obtain and the other currency, Karma, isn't transferrable.  I don't think ease of obtaining gold will have any affect on the gold seller problem.  Never underestimate the power of the lazy gamer who'd rather shell out $20 for gold than earn it themselves.  Hopefully they stay on top of the problem like Trion did with Rift and it becomes scarce.
6. The official GW2 forums turn into a cesspool with little to no ANET feedback.  I'd gladly accept heavy-handed forum moderation if it means we get constant dev interaction. At this point there are no official forums for GW2. The forums where the Developers post are GW2Guru, and I can tell you from personal experience that the moderation there is heavy-handed and better than the moderation on these forums. The only official forums we might get will be support oriented, which require less moderation than the dreaded General Forums.  I'm curious why you say the only official forums will be support oriented.  Was that the case for other ANET games?
7. People will min/max the game to death and we'll have the constant rolling FOTM class effect of people flocking from one OP class to the next as they get nerfed/buffed. With the restrictive/limited skillbar and ANets balancing experience from GW1 I don't think this will be a problem. And I think that min/maxers will soon find themselves without anything to do if they decide to go powergamer.  On the contrary I remember an ANET rep saying they didn't do dual classes in GW2 because of all the issues they had balancing it in GW.  Perhaps single classes will be the answer, but perhaps not (this is a fear thread after all :p ).
8. Even though there's no "holy trinity", people will find the optimum 5 class/role group for difficult content, and you won't be invited unless you conform to those 5 classes/roles (thus having the same effect as the "holy trinity"). This could potentially be a problem. But this depends on class balance and on the tactics that may be required for different dungeons. We can only hope that the game won't be too addon friendly and doesn't give players too much insight into the overall performance of different group combinations.  I'm sure even if people don't have access to DPS meters and whatnot, they'll still be able to judge what the most efficient group makeup is and you better believe it will be drilled down our throats.  Gone are the days of EQ and DAOC where people played for the sheer fun of experiencing the game.  Now it's all about who can do it the fastest.  Maybe GW2 will turn things around, maybe.

 

Originally posted by Alot

Originally posted by Sixpax

I'm not saying this is how things are going to turn out, but these are my fears nonetheless:

1. Even though I like the idea of no tank or healer, there is a certain % of the MMO crowd that enjoys playing dedicated roles.  My fear is ANET is going to alienate a good portion of them.  Hopefully there are roles that aren't dedicated to those functions but still gives those players the same level of satisfaction.
2. There will be too many people who could care less about working as a team during dynamic events and strictly go straight DPS, not bothering to do any support (healing, protecting, debuffing, ressing, etc.).  Eventually that becomes the norm and despite ANET's best efforts, it's every man for himself.
3. ANET caves to the whinners who complain that there's no "end game" at level 80 and turns this into a gear-based and raid/instance-focused game for fear of losing players.  As sad as it is to say, Blizzard has brain washed people into thinking it's all about the gear, and I fear the WoW-was-my-first-MMO crowd will be very vocal.
4. The revolutionary mechanics of no kill/loot stealing that ANET is introducing will be heavily exploitable.
5. Gold/RMT spammers.  Hopefully there won't be any trial accounts so they'll have to pay for a new copy of the game each time they get banned.
6. The official GW2 forums turn into a cesspool with little to no ANET feedback.  I'd gladly accept heavy-handed forum moderation if it means we get constant dev interaction.
7. People will min/max the game to death and we'll have the constant rolling FOTM class effect of people flocking from one OP class to the next as they get nerfed/buffed.
8. Even though there's no "holy trinity", people will find the optimum 5 class/role group for difficult content, and you won't be invited unless you conform to those 5 classes/roles (thus having the same effect as the "holy trinity").

Would you mind if I commented on your fears?

Not at all.

I'm not saying this is how things are going to turn out, but these are my fears nonetheless:

1. Even though I like the idea of no tank or healer, there is a certain % of the MMO crowd that enjoys playing dedicated roles.  My fear is ANET is going to alienate a good portion of them.  Hopefully there are roles that aren't dedicated to those functions but still gives those players the same level of satisfaction.
2. There will be too many people who could care less about working as a team during dynamic events and strictly go straight DPS, not bothering to do any support (healing, protecting, debuffing, ressing, etc.).  Eventually that becomes the norm and despite ANET's best efforts, it's every man for himself.
3. ANET caves to the whinners who complain that there's no "end game" at level 80 and turns this into a gear-based and raid/instance-focused game for fear of losing players.  As sad as it is to say, Blizzard has brain washed people into thinking it's all about the gear, and I fear the WoW-was-my-first-MMO crowd will be very vocal.
4. The revolutionary mechanics of no kill/loot stealing that ANET is introducing will be heavily exploitable.
5. Gold/RMT spammers.  Hopefully there won't be any trial accounts so they'll have to pay for a new copy of the game each time they get banned.
6. The official GW2 forums turn into a cesspool with little to no ANET feedback.  I'd gladly accept heavy-handed forum moderation if it means we get constant dev interaction.
7. People will min/max the game to death and we'll have the constant rolling FOTM class effect of people flocking from one OP class to the next as they get nerfed/buffed.
8. Even though there's no "holy trinity", people will find the optimum 5 class/role group for difficult content, and you won't be invited unless you conform to those 5 classes/roles (thus having the same effect as the "holy trinity").

Originally posted by IPolygon

Either you like the artstyle or you don't, but calling GW2 Asian is bullshit.

You know, Asian = Anime.

I'm assuming the OP thought GW2 is Asian because NCsoft is a Korean company.  That's the only thing I can come up with.

GW2 definitely isn't my last hope because (as others have stated in this thread) GW2 will probably spark some new ideas from future MMO's.  In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard does some redesigning of its new/upcoming MMO based on what the ANET guys have been advertising with GW2.

I think companies are going to have to re-think their subscription model as well.  Why would anyone pay a monthly fee knowing that GW2 (hopefully) pulled it off without one?  I know I sure will have second thoughts about paying a subscription fee after GW2 is released (unless it totally flops of course).

Originally posted by ngueva2

It's great to see a nice balance between the races, though I have to say the sylvari has surprised me

Same.  Before I saw the results I was expecting Human and Charr to dominate the poll, but thankfully it's a lot more evenly distributed than I expected.

Has there been any information on how loot drops work in GW2?  I'm hoping they decided to question that like they have with so many other things we take as MMORPG standards today.  It's always been kinda "meh" to me that bunnies drop two-handed weapons and such.  I know they've talked about dungeon bosses droping tokens or whatever that you turn in for an item you want, which is a step in the right direction, but hopefully normal mobs aren't dropping items that don't make any logical sense as well.  Heck I'd rather they just drop crafting materials if nothing else.  Talk about promoting the crafting system, not to mention putting a lot of emphasis on bartering.

---

Originally posted by OldManFunk

---

Originally posted by Sixpax

And again I ask... what did you expect of an item-shop game? Something for nothing?

---

I have to admit that I didn't expect to drop $500 on a single set of gear. I guess I expected the prices to be more reasonable?

---

The amount spent is completely up to the individual. Unlike a P2P where you're required to spend $160/yr (or whatever) if you want to play. In the 15 months that I've played RoM I've spent less than what I would have spent on WoW, although I don't feel pressured to "keep up with the Joneses" and I progress at a pace that my time and wallet afford. I don't have this choice with a P2P... I either pony up the money or quit, there is no middle ground.

If you feel it's necessary to spend $500 on a single set of equipment, then don't bash RoM for that, that's your own lack of self control. It's not required. You could certainly buy end-game gear (already stated) with game gold, thanks to people retiring items and using bind lifters. Funny how you didn't mention that in your "review".

---

Originally posted by OldManFunk

RoM's macros are like WoW's macros back before Blizzard decided that macros should not be able to make game play decisions for players (pre-BC). In vanilla WoW healers used an addon that would place the person with the lowest health at the top of a healing list so that they could just click one button to raid heal. It also had the ability to check the raid for debuffs that could be cured and then cleansed them with one button press. Vanilla Wow's macros also gave players the ability to make macros that could choose the best spell for any given situation (based on health, mana, range, debuffs, etc) with a single button press or mouse click. You can't do this in WoW any more and it would be impossible to rewrite your RoM combat engine to work in WoW (without 3rd party cheats/hax).

---

I'm not referring to WoW during the pre-BC timeframe. I played past the release of BC and that's when I used the macro I was referring to. It was tricky to get the logic right but I certainly could play with 1 button.

---

Originally posted by OldManFunk

WoW's current macro system doesn't play the game for you and so it does not ruin WoW's PvP (Blizzard finds other ways to ruin WoW's PvP). RoM's current macro system can play the game for you and so does ruin RoM's PvP (even before item shop items have a chance to completely ruin RoM's PvP).

---

Not true at all. For it to "play the game for you" would mean that your intervention isn't needed (i.e. a bot). In the past that was possible with RoM, but just like Blizzard, Runewaker has put a stop to automation of that sort. What you can do with RoM is have it pick which skill to use every time you click a key, just like I could do with WoW. I'll reiterate, WoW's code was more restrictive but I could certainly have it pick skills for me based on certain criteria.

If you don't believe me, just look at the http://wowmacros.com website. Here's an example macro from there:

/castrandom [equipped:shields] Shield Slam, Revenge; Revenge
/cast [equipped:shields] Shield Block

Kinda looks like a 1-button macro that uses 3 different skills to me.

And that's just a simple case. There are much more complicated ones.

---

Originally posted by OldManFunk

RoM was a fun, surprisingly complete, free game for about 2 months. If you were going to play a game for 2 months without ever wanting to experience the end-game then RoM is a great choice.

2 months of RoM costs you nothing.
The WoW Battle Chest costs $30 and comes with one month. The next month is $15. The final expansion is another $30... but you won't likely get to it in 2 months (just like you won't likely get to the point in RoM where you need diamonds in 2 months of play).

RoM can be FREE for 2 months. WoW costs $45!

What if you play for a year and experience game content? It's something like $160 for a year of WoW + $30 for the game and $30 for the most recent expansion... so $220 for a year of WoW!

Finding the cost of playing RoM is far more complicated. You could spend $500 on maxing out a single set of gear but you could also spend much less... and here is my biggest problem with RoM, as long as you play to progress (get better gear) then you are going to replace your gear. Every time you replace your gear you need to stat, tier and plus it to get the most out of it... and so every time you get new gear you're looking at buying diamonds. How many times will you obtain items that need to be upgraded in a year of playing? The more you play and progress the more it's going to cost you and you're not going to get the best of the best end-game gear without enhancing and then replacing some lesser gear first.

Further complicating RoM is that your characters are dual class. Want to gear out that second class? Unless it can share gear from your first class (like Priest/Mage) then you'll have to obtain and upgrade a second set of gear if you want to play both classes (ie: War/Mage). Like to play alts? Each alt will cost you even more to equip. Obtaining a single set of end-game gear can be expensive. Multiply that times each of your alts that you plan on maxing out.

Even further complicating RoM is all of the item shop consumables and extras. Maxing out your gear can be expensive. So can maxing out your TP unless you're willing to spend a great deal of time grinding without item shop items to boost your gains. Oh, and those 70% mounts sure looked nice... for people who could afford to pay extra for them.

If people are happy not being able to participate in competitive PvP or do end-game content then they could save a ton of money playing RoM for free. If they want to be able to PvP competitively or experience the vast majority of the game then they can spend less money and experience more content in a subscription game.

---

And again I ask... what did you expect of an item-shop game? Something for nothing?

Originally posted by jackmcleod

Originally posted by Sixpax

 I wonder if there are unannounced classes that haven't been revealed to us yet.

Yes well, I wonder if there are announced classes that haven't been revealed yet or if there are unannounced classes that have been revealed. Now that would be interesting to know....

Yeah that would be about as interesting as "can I haz jumpz0r?"