Originally posted by Sabrel

I love the arrogance in the way the two faction question is answered...

The more the people at Vigil talk, the less interested in the game I get.

Hush,  The game isn't even fully out yet and your naysaying it?  And what arrogance?  He was using a PC statement to keep the rabid fanboys like yourself from bursting out at them.

Originally posted by kileak

Originally posted by MNZeba

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by Ozivois

Originally posted by Mazarn

Because Star Wars Galaxies didn't have this 7 years ago, right?

 

SWG had one character per server aswell and people still played straight crafter.

 

 Yep, I was a Chef and had no time for adventuring anyways, that process was so complicated, lol

Yes, but in SWG you could have as many characters as you wanted, just on different servers, heck I had at least 6 in SWG, while that is not the case with FFXIV, you get one character and have to pay for additional ones.

That is good that they don't limit having multiple skills, so you can mix trade with other skills if you have time.  It would have been nice if the article mentioned that important fact.   My bone of contention was the poor article, not the game.   I have some good friends that swear by the previous generation of the game and they are avidly looking forward to this one.

 

Your one character can be all the jobs. You change jobs by changing your weapon. You can level every job/class to max. This makes having more then one character usless. Just people the race that you like the best.

 

That brings up a whole new set of problems item storage. so with x number of jobs x number of sets of equipment x number of normal ingrediants you think a single character will have the storage space needed to do everything your mentioning ? how many sets of armor diffrent weapons/tools stacks of ingrediants do you think a singel character on a single account can hold. is storage infinate ? or is it limited ? if it is infinate then yea picka  race and play to your hearts content. if it's limited and i find myself in a situation where i have to limit my choices more and more as i get more stuff because i need that stuff to play all these options then that becomes not so cool really fast.

And herein lies the crux of the problem....

Why do people feel the need to have to create alts, or level every single class?  I always hated the fact that in some games, people would just create alts to create their items.  It creates a very closed economy that ends up becoming stale.  If companies took a more straightforward approach and made crafting classes a MAJOR decision....then it would really open up the possibilities for true economies to flourish.

I bought the first two expansions, but never really completed the story arcs for any of them.  I know, I missed out on finishing them...

But my favorite memories are the winter snowball fights.  Those were always so competitive, yet so much fun! 

As the title says, the method upon which I keep hearing about class specilization in SW:TOR is eerily similar to Tabula Rasa.

Granted TR had, IMO, a very narrow method in which it provided entertainment, I still feel that the situation feels too similar. 

While the idea behind having archetypes of classes is a good one that has been used before, it lends itself to the idea that the preliminary classes are nothing more then stepping stones, something to surmount as fast as possible to get to the "true play style".

You see this somewhat in other MMO's, for simplicities sake we'll use WoW.   The idea here is that in WoW has skills which fundamentally change how a class plays once they achieve them.  I haven't played WoW in awihle now, but back when I did,  it was considered somewhat gamechanging for a shaman once he recieved Chain Lightning and (back when it was available) clearcasting trait.

I digress though.  My point is that while archetypes are a way to introduce people to a class and let them learn and get a feel for the underlying base mechanics of their class before progressing; it also produces an inherent throught process that the archetype is "inferior" to the specilized sub-classes.

I think that the reason people get burnt out on MMO's is that we frequently are given less then reliable information for MMO's, then are given tantalizing offers for pre-ordering, joining an MMO.  After joining, we find that the MMO is nothing more then a diamond encrusted pile of cow dung.  Sure it sparkles, is great to look at, fun to poke at, but in the end it still smells like shit.

My last experience with a "new" MMO was with Star Trek Online...and it left such a bitter taste in my mouth.

P.S. TrueLevel, I stole your sig....love it!

Originally posted by x3r0h

Originally posted by Sykomyke

Originally posted by Loke666

And I don't see how you could sue anyone for that, dumbest thing I heard.

Federal Trade Commision states that you cannot make something that inherently has a "chance" to receive something require purchase in order to recieve that.  Equal opportunity claims are required, meaning that someone who has not bought that "product" has the same chance to "win" as anyone else.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/08/sweepstakestestimony.htm

Anything that has "chance" involved and is payed for is considered a lottery, and is illegal unless it IS a lottery.

So no, it's not the dumbest thing you've ever heard, but I can honestly say that your statement falls into that category...

 

Beta testing is not a lottery. Beta testing is not a right, its a privilege. And its mostly a privilege for the game company that brought you in to test it; They are privileged to have someone test their incomplete game to make it complete. You are NOT being paid, and they are NOT offering a gift or incentive.

For someone throwing around a lot of "research," you certainly don't seem to understand what you are throwing around.

I understand exactly what I'm "throwing around".   If you reference my original post I even said "highly unlikely that anyone would be able to prove as such".

When I said this, if you read the context you would realize that I'm referencing the ability to prove that any marketable material whatsoever.  If one had the ability to prove that internal protocol for finding new beta applicants required the game, then someone might be able to create a lawsuit based on the fact that the game itself costs money to buy.   I never stated it was feasible.  The main reasoning behind this is because of the other guys preliminary statement suggesting that you would HAVE to have the game to be in the beta.  This is incorrect,  while their internal practices may very much align with this...there is no way to prove it.  Because anyone working for arenanet and it's beta acceptance policy isn't going to divulge whether or not you NEED to have the game to be in beta.  As long as they state that it's available to anyone who signs up, that's fine.   

I never stated it was a right.  But beta testing is not a privelage either.  This falls under the same viewpoint of those who beta test in earlier stages of a beta thinking they are "better" then those who test in later stages.  I highly suspect you are one of those types.  

But again on the main topic,  if SOMONE could prove, (however unlikely it is)  that a beta REQUIRES purchase (without it stating that it requires purchase) then you might be able to create a lawsuit based on the aforementioned FTC law.   As long as they advertise "Beta access guaranteed when you Pre-Purchase" or something along those lines, it's not considered a "lottery".

I never stated it was a privelage or a right or any other such nonsense.  A beta is a beta,  it's you testing a game.  It allows the developers to stress their server load with a vast population, and it allows you a first glimpse at the game.  This is also the reason their beta is coming out so late.    I was merely pointing out to the other poster that IF someone could prove the connection there is a SMALL possibility of being able to create a lawsuit.  My apologies if my years of pre-law before I switched to CSIS overflow and I see loopholes in legal design, guess that's a curse I will have to live with.  Next time you want to throw around assumptions about me, or put words in my mouth I suggest you don't.

Originally posted by Loke666

And I don't see how you could sue anyone for that, dumbest thing I heard.

Federal Trade Commision states that you cannot make something that inherently has a "chance" to receive something require purchase in order to recieve that.  Equal opportunity claims are required, meaning that someone who has not bought that "product" has the same chance to "win" as anyone else.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/08/sweepstakestestimony.htm

Anything that has "chance" involved and is payed for is considered a lottery, and is illegal unless it IS a lottery.

So no, it's not the dumbest thing you've ever heard, but I can honestly say that your statement falls into that category...

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Sykomyke

Interesting if this is true, as beta signups usually have a disclaimer that subscribing to current games owned by the same company does not inherently give you a higher chance to be in the "new" game's beta.  It falls under the same reason that you see those "Win a Million Dollars!" on Reeses Cups say on the back "Purchase not necessary" to enter the contest. 

While being able to prove it is highly unlikely, anyone able to prove that ArenaNet is handing out beta invites based on any current games you may own would have a very lucrative lawsuit on their hands.

Not always true. A buddy of mine got the Starcraft 2 beta and will get Cataclysm and D3 because he is active in Wow and on battle.net, he just got a mail without even asking for it.

And I don't see how you could sue anyone for that, dumbest thing I heard.

Most likely will they offer some betas for their community, some for journalists and some for contests and the rest from people who volunteers.

I am actually considering to go to Gamescon even if it is rather far, I really would like to check this out by myself. 

I have been in the Starcraft 2 beta since Feb.  I was not subscribed to WoW at the time and had not played WoW in over a year.  I was not currently playing SC:BW, I was not currently playing Diablo 2:LOD.  I had signed up for all 3 beta universe portals on my battle.net account though.

Your "buddy" will not get get an invite based on the fact that he has an active WoW account, nor becaue he is active on B.Net.  I can assure you that. I stopped playing the SC2 beta because I was not enjoying the new model they were using to base their balancing upon.  Three weeks later I ended up getting a buddy key invite to invite another friend of mine.  If they had any sense they would have seen I was not playing and not wasted sending me the invite.

My point is, you aren't guaranteed any beta invites unless specifically stated "Pre-Order now to secure access to Beta!"

Interesting if this is true, as beta signups usually have a disclaimer that subscribing to current games owned by the same company does not inherently give you a higher chance to be in the "new" game's beta.  It falls under the same reason that you see those "Win a Million Dollars!" on Reeses Cups say on the back "Purchase not necessary" to enter the contest. 

While being able to prove it is highly unlikely, anyone able to prove that ArenaNet is handing out beta invites based on any current games you may own would have a very lucrative lawsuit on their hands.

Originally posted by Warband

The point was especially with competitive GvG it was very difficult to gather and organise 8 people to go do a GVG match. Thus less people were able make a regular 8 person team so less played overall. With 5v5 There won't just be more teams they'll be more players playing because it isn't so hard to gather a 5 man team and is far more appealing to the average player. 

To anyone who regularly plays these matches e.g high level players. This is a great thing as there is more players and teams to play with as less time needed to acquire a team so more time can be spent actually competing against other teams.

The whole rock paper scissors arguement is not necessarily true because your assuming certain groups of professions will be designed to be direct counters to others when it can also be designed not to be the case. Also due to the fact you can easily change your skills in battle via weapon changes and attunements for elementalists. The strategy you made before battle can be mostly overcome by the team changing their skills mid battle and so their team build completely alters.

The professions and skills will be designed completely around the 5v5 battle so balances can be made accordingly. If done right this can be amazing good for the competitive pvp scene so lets hold off from the doom and gloom until we're actually playing the game

/thread :)

Originally posted by tddavis

I imagine it is a soulbound currency that can't be traded between players. it is meant to rewards people who participate in public events. This soulbound currency is becoming the new way to battle gold farmers. Puts less value in the standard currency so all the good stuff in the game you won't be able to buy your way into, you actually have to play the game to get the rewards.

If I understand you correctly, wouldn't this just be easier to get rid of gold outright?  Or would we still have gold for "common" items and stuff?  At what point do you award soulbound currency in lieu of regular currency?  At what point do you make a specific item or job cost souldbound currency instead of regular currency?

These are mainly rhetorical questions but feel free to answer... :)

Originally posted by XTC2

10-slot skill bar equals deal-breaker.  I don't play games that limit me in my choice of skills at my disposal.  It's my friggin' skill and I'll use it whenever and wherever I feel like it or don't bother giving it to me in the first place.  It's that simple. It's why I didn't play Guild Wars and its why I won't play GW2.

Oops.  Another mob popped behind me.  No biggie. I'll just fear him and place until I'm done killing this one...oh, wait.  Silly me chose to have another melee skill instead of my fear because this stupid game won't let me have access to all of my skills.

Lame.

Saying something is a deal breaker without ever trying it is a form of ignorance.  Skills in GW1 (and to a lesser extend GW2) are(will) be about finding synergy between them.  Overall skills in GW1 were more powerful then most games.   And a reason why they don't give you all your skills,  well,  are you going to go into an area/mission that has ice elementals all over the place and bring your water/ice skills? Or are you going to bring your fire skills?  (This isn't a hard question...)

You don't use all your skills at the same time in WoW or whatever it is you are playing at the moment anyhow.  If you took out ALL the ranks of the skills that WoW gives you, and all the crap skills that noone uses, I dare say you would have LESS skills then GW1 players use on a regular basis. 

That?  It COULD be a zoning portal...possibly.  They could also have zones in their alpha/beta tests just to make things easier...you never know.  it could also be an instance (of some sorts).

Take a look at most console and PC games these days.  What's the ONE thing in common among nearly all of them?   Achievments.  Achievments are there for games with no visual progression.  (and in some there to go along with progression).

This is why WoW put in achievments, after the carrot of leveling has been lifted, they then gave you achievments to back and work for.  This ensures that they will continue to have people who want to attempt to do everything, even if it's impossible.

Now I could see a non-progression based MMO working if they made earning your skills the progression.  Take for example Quake Wars: Enemy Territory.  This is a perfect example of a game that rewards USING skills to earn better ones, and only for the ones that you use.  Using your secondary weapon?  Ok, your Light Firearms skill goes up a little bit.  Once you reach a bar for it, you get a bonus and possibly something additional in your Light Firearms skills.  In the warzone actively damaging enemies?  Ok, your Battle Sense earns a few more points.  Reach enough battle sense and you spawn with an extra clip of ammo.

Imagine an MMO somewhere along those lines, where skills you USED or activities you participated in, were how your character developed.  Not by an experience bar, but just by your characters experience.  It's a system based on how the person wants to play and grows based on HOW they play.  Somewhat similar to Oblivion I guess..

Originally posted by Alberel

Lol, the people saying this is just like WoW probably only looked at the pictures... this is actually closer to the old EQ2 system. Each class subdivides and becomes a more specialised role, once you reach that specialisation you can start advancing along a choice of skill trees.

There are essentially 16 classes covering a total of 40 different skill trees.

 

So it's actually very similar to Tabula Rasa's Class system.  Better do it right, b/c TR's class system was good in theory but horrible in implementation.

Originally posted by Falfeir

Originally posted by Sykomyke

...you simply cannot find a high quality major MMO that isn't persistant.  So using the term "persistant" to describe them would be rather redundant don't you think?  It's just naturally become something that is expected of MMO's, maybe this is where our confusion comes from, because nowadays persistant is a redundant description and therefore (at least to me and a few of my friends) is interchangable with seamless....

 

normally, for any other game, you are right; but for gw2, the way gw1 was, when they say it will be persistant it can and probably mean persistant. Also being seamless is kinda a bragging right, i dont think any company would pass the opportunity on that one if their game is seamless by using the term persistant.

True,  they would definitely use the term as a marketing tool.  But I wouldn't put it past any devloper company to not use any and all marketing tools they have to gain attention.  My main dismay isn't going to come from whether it's seamless or not, but the "Public Dynamic quest" system.  I'm a little worried that it might turn into WAR's PQ system, but we can leave that discussion for that thread.

Originally posted by Lazerou

Originally posted by Sykomyke

So why is it so hard for you and that other guy with the hyrule crest, whos name escapes me at the moment, to find the same information that took me 10 seconds out of my work day to find? Perhaps you should spend more time actually learning how to search for your own information instead of trying to increase your post count for the sake of seeing your own text.

Yeah but you still don't really seem to be understanding what a lot of people are saying. You need to understand what is being said before having a spaz attack.

Just use examples. I can run from one end of a WoW continent to the other without one loading screen, to do this I pass through numerous zones. This is termed as seamless - no loading screens between zones.

On the other hand you have a bunch of games (WAR, AoC, GW) that when you move from one world zone to another you actually are forced to sit through a loading screen. So from one end of a continent to the other causes you to have multiple loading screens.

A persistent world simply means that the world remains active after you log out. That is, it isn't like a diablo game that is loaded new each time you start. The world persists and can change whether you are logged in or not.

You can have seamless persistent MMOs. You can have non-seamless persistent MMOs.

The OP was asking if his preferred style (seamless) would be the way GW 2 would go.

I very much hope that they do as well. I really dislike loading screens between world zones. When I see games that don't do it, it always makes me wonder why others find it necessary.

I find it humorous that you think I'm having a spaz attack.  Irritated? Yes.  Spazzing.  Not even close.  I understand exactly what you, and he are saying.  My point was that terms change and adjust based on evolving trends within industries.  If you read my previous statement instead of trying to "one-up" me you'll see that I already stated that you simply cannot find a high quality major MMO that isn't persistant.  So using the term "persistant" to describe them would be rather redundant don't you think?  It's just naturally become something that is expected of MMO's, maybe this is where our confusion comes from, because nowadays persistant is a redundant description and therefore (at least to me and a few of my friends) is interchangable with seamless.    It's kind of like carbonated beverages.  In the south/southeast US it's referred to as coke, in the north/northwest it's reffered to as pop, in the far west/southwest it's called soda.

As for seamless, again,  I spent 10 seconds reading their site and they said it wil be "heavily" instanced.  Since the devlopers have stated time and time again they are moving away from the "grab quest, go here, kill stuff, come back" model of gaming, and that the entire idea behind their philosphies is to create dynamically changing zones that are based upon how NPC's and Players are interacting with each other, I would say that there's an extremely STRONG chance of it not being seamless and being very similar to GW1 in terms of  each zone having a loading screen.  And honestly, I don't mind.  Who cares if it has a loading screen?  I won't deny that they are slightly annoying if placed too frequently, but each developer has their own method of trying to deliver their vision to the customer (You). 

Originally posted by Alberel

Originally posted by illyana

i got this from IGN interview

Still other events could be entirely random, such as events tied to the game's weather system.

"A giant lightning storm could form over the map, and lightning bolts could start shooting down, creating lightning elementals all over the place," Johanson says. "Lightning elementals that cause events that chain out from that, as elementals spread out across the map and start to cause havoc."

http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1089082p1.html

 

That actually has me wondering if the comparison to the public quest system is accurate... this actually makes it sound more like an objective based AI with some elements of the L4D director AI thrown in.

If it is entirely AI based, rather than scripted, then this system actually could genuinely be infinitely dynamic.

 That's an interesting point you bring up.  I play Left4Dead2 and the AI director can by quite brutal sometimes.  Imagine MMO's with an AI director being the only thing that directs how the game flows?  It gives me chills (excited) to think of the all the possibilities.

Originally posted by jhorry

Originally posted by Sykomyke

Originally posted by jhorry

 

... I think it is you who are confused.

 

He is wondering if the world will be seamless, ala Vanguard or World of Warcraft, in which in there are no loading screens for "normal" traveling conditions (i.e. not going into/out of an instance OR using long distance travel ala teleportation or what not)

 

In vanguard, for example, I can go between the various zoned "blocks" with only a 1 to 4 second miniture pause or stutter because the surrounding areas have been preloaded. In Everquest 1 or 2, though, you have a loading screen and significant time when going between various zones.

 

So his question remains 100% valid. Has anyone heard if they intend to make the world seamless, in which you can smoothly transition between locals, or will it be segmented with loading screens.

You think it is I who is confused?  Who the fuck are you?

 

Like qirihad said, 1-4 second "stutter" and 1-4 second loading times are equally the same.  However I have yet to experience an MMO that purposely has a "stutter".  There are either loading screens or no.  Sounds like your computer in vanguard wasn't up to par to playing it with the 1-4 second "miniture pause".  Now before you go foaming at the mouth to defend the honor of your "beefy rig" or what-have-you, realize that medicore machines+poor coding="stuttering" or "pausing" or "loading".

You dont see it in other MMOs that much because the draw distance for objects is contantly being readjusted based on number of players nearby and pre-loading certain objects and using various degrees of models for them.

They stated that the world is persistant.  That means it will be like WoW or LOTRO, where the only zoning is going inside of instances or story shards.  Seamlessness is not a valid question because it just states the same thing as persistant.  If a game is persistant it does not have "zoning times" between locals.  GW1 is not persistant,  GW2 is.  Seamless is just some kid trying to justify his crappy computer.

You need to chill out.

 

There is a difference, as others have pointed out, between a loading screen and a brief, often times completely inperceviable loading time, or in the best situations, background loading that takes place as you progress near a boundery.

It also has serious ramifications for what type of hardware the developers will need to run the game, as a "true" seemless game requires more resources than a game segmented by zones and loading screens

 

 

Seemless =/= Persistant.

 

Persistant may IMPLY that the world is seemsless, but it does not dictate that it is. For example, if I leave something on the ground in a game, and come back a day later and it is still there, or someone has picked it up, or it has caused any other "persiting" effect once I log off, the a game can be said to be persistant.

There are plenty of "seemless" situations that do not have persistant elements. Vanguard, for example, would not be a really good example of a persistant world. The only thing that is persistant about it would be the player made structures and boats that will remain in the world when the player leaves the game To a lesser extent, the areas that have a slow mob respawn rate which can effect the play style of other players even after the original player has logged off could also be considered persistant (i.e. i need a boss to complete my quest, but he has a 2 hour respawn timer, and someone already killed it.)

 

So yes, I do believe you are confused, and that confused people often resort to profanities or other aggressive tendencies further solidifies my belief.

 

Presistant worlds and Seemless worlds are a perfect match for each other, BUT neither requires the other. If I go into a boxed in, loading screen inducing zone and change some aspect of the zone that has ramifications for other players who also can venture into this area at a later time, then it is persistant but zoned, where as if I can go into through multiple areas without the need for a loading screen or pauses, but my actions have no persistant, lasting effect on the environment or other players who come after me, then the game is seemless but not persistant.

 

Anyway, hope you are less confused on this subject now, and that you will remain calmer in future discourse.

Your attitude was the reason I used profanity, not because I was confused.  Again, you want people to "remain calmer in future discourse" then you should probably drop the holier-than-thou attitude.  Otherwise I will continue to berate you because that is my perogative. 

(Also, for your information, when you attempt to reply in a metacommunicative manner and yet still use a retalitory tone set wtihin your writing it tends to make people not want to listen to you, because it shows a passive aggressive nature that, in the internet forum world, shows that you are attempting to garner favor not by imparting knowledge, but by playing the martyr).

Will Guild Wars 2 be an MMO?

Yes. Guild Wars 2 provides a massive, online persistent world.

How is Guild Wars 2 different from other MMOs?

While Guild Wars 2 adds a persistent-world experience, it retains the unique characteristics of the original game, including strong narrative, extensive instanced gameplay, anti-grind design philosophy, and strong support for competitive play.

I don't think I can recall the last time I played a MMO that wasn't persistant, except maybe when I was playing MUD's in the late 80's/early 90's.   As games evolve, so do the terms.  Persistance doesn't maintain that when you leave an item on the ground it will be there in 4 hours.  Persistance maintains that the world will roughly stay the same.  You go to a city, when you come back you expect the city to be there.  Something may have changed slightly but for the most part the persistant effect is still there.  If you truly wanted to be a stickler about it, then NO game would fall into the defintions of seamless nowadays, as there are tons of instances scattered around.   Take LOTRO for example.  Going into any building will zone you into a different area with a small load time.  This is due to the amount of detail LOTRO puts in its buildings.  Take WoW,  they mainly only use instances for group instances, but by your definition of seamless WoW not fall into this category...even though the "Main World" is seamless, the entire world isn't, which is actually a fact as each continent has it's own loading screen). 

I included the above highlighted text from the Guild Wars 2 site in their FAQ section.  Please note the bolded part.  My immediate reaction is that there will probably be major zones that will require loading, as well as battle zones that will require loading (public quests, pvp areas, etc).  It took me 2 second to double check that and deduce my own very acceptable theory of what type of game GW2 will be.

So why is it so hard for you and that other guy with the hyrule crest, whos name escapes me at the moment, to find the same information that took me 10 seconds out of my work day to find?  Perhaps you should spend more time actually learning how to search for your own information instead of trying to increase your post count for the sake of seeing your own text.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Sykomyke

Originally posted by Trihflu

"I bet if I didn't wear a condom, and if you didn't take your pill, the baby we would have would definitely be a hermaphrodite with down syndrome".  It probably wouldn't happen, and it's too early to tell anyway.

Yea, but you can't deny that there WILL be a baby.  Doesn't matter if it has down syndrome or not.  Using a silly analogy, you can expect to get a silly answer.

Wrong. With such adverse odds, that kid will be a freakin' SUPERMAN. Only the strong survive.

Haha Quirhid.  Just noticed your sig.  You stole that from Yahtzee! :)

I miss Tabula Rasa, would have been a great game if they had put a little more time and effort into it... I still have it installed on my computer so I can launch the game and look at the loading screen and reminesce.