Originally posted by ArEf

So, I recently got into the Diablo 3 EU beta and wow. Seriously, wow. This game is BAD. I'm shocked it managed to get past even the new Blizzard's QA team.

I'm getting 200ms ping and having that registered as "good" (ie. in the green in terms of latency) by the game, with random 500ms lagspikes. It's entirely possible that the EU beta's servers are set up in the US, but I get at least 160ms from US servers in every other game, and god only knows. This leads to a shit tonne of artificial difficulty and near death experiences.

The CoD-esque levelling mechanics are laughable, as are the ways abilities work. Every level, you get a new ability or a new upgrade for one of your abilities, and you will ALWAYS have every ability at max level. You have no choice in what order you get them. The only thing that distinguises you from other players is gear.

Switching out abilities gives you a 10 second (or thereabouts, not sure on the exact figure) cooldown on that ability, which means switching out abilities or having more than six active abilities is unfeasible, which can lead to situations where you get attacked and don't have the right ability for the situation.

All this just feeds into having the easiest general loadout and spamming the attack until everything is dead, regardless of the situation. You approach everything in the same way, deal with it in the same way and the like. You won't vary from other player's experiences either, as they're ALSO doing it in the same way.

Don't get me started on how horribly the classes are in general. They're not archetypal, they're not very balanced (heavy armoured barbarian / monk more easily kills stuff than the flimsy wizard?) and they're just not very fun. Witch Doctor is a bad necromancer clone, Demon Hunter is like a crappy D2 assassin, Wizard is just a poor man's sorceress, Monk is actually alright in terms of overall design and Barbarian is just a straight rip from D2 and therefore the best class in the game.

The healing potion / healing orb issue just shows how schizophrenic the design team is. On the one hand, you have healing potions which allow you to decide when you need healing and use them when you need them. On the other hand, you have healing orbs which drop randomly off mobs and heal you when you walk over them. Of course, due to this, healing orbs are utterly useless, or at least could be better replaced by healing potion drops, and is a fine example of "lol wut are we meant to be doing again???".

Graphically, the game is horrible. It reminds me of Icewind Dale 2 in terms of looks. You could say it has a certain style to it, if you thought style could mean "looks like it's from early 21st century". Low polygon models, ugly arse textures and a general bad colour scheme just makes the game seem faded and already aged. Compare it with, say, Diablo or Diablo 2 in modern resolutions and they don't look nearly as aged as this game.

Controls-wise, the game's okay-ish. Everything's pretty much the same as Diablo 2 (shift to stay still whilst you attack, ctrl to view thingies, alt to view items etc), and everything is therefore okay.

I just fail to see how this is a Diablo game. To me, it feels like a poor Korean Diablo-wannabe that made a bunch of bad design decisions because they had a massive budget, a lot of time and no idea how to improve on the original.

The graphical changes, gameplay changes, EVERYTHING changes have just ruined the overall experience and turned it into a game worthy of nothing more than the award of "Worst AAA Game of 2012".

I disagree with nearly your entire post.

Latency issues are the least of your concerns.  For me, I have no seen any latency issues at all.  Blizzard will iron out the problems, it's BETA. 

Switching out abilities is really smart.  Part of it has to do with allowing people alternate playstyles for any situation.  Part of it has to do with balancing PvP.  If you could swap everything out instantly, then combat would most likely turn into a bunch of scripting, button mashing garbage.  Do remember that this is the first Diablo that is trying to produced a balanced PvP experience.  You may approach every situation the same, but I don't. 

Characters are very diverse.  So I agree completely again.  Also, we all know there will be an expansion with added characters to play.  This is not everything.

Healing orbs are meant to take the focus off of chugging potions at hyper speed.  It's meant to put more focus on the combat itself and keep the flow of combat going without having to stop for town potion runs.  It's a good change.  I personally feel that the healing potion cooldown is too long, but that could be a quick change.  BETA.

Graphically, the game is leaps and bounds above Diablo 2 and any other RPG hack and slash title in the past.  That's also including the ones that will come out after it that all of the Diablo haters always have to mention in every Diablo post.  Not just graphics either, I'm talking about UI, animations, as well as the feel of the world. 

Why even mention the controls?  In fact, they are better than previous Diablo's.  They've reduced the amount of clicking and button mashing with health globes and dragging between your targets with the holding of a mouse button.  Everything seems less clunky, and much smoother. 

This game is clearly still Diablo.  The only things that I really don't like are the RMT auction system (Though it happens regardless) and the exclusion of gathering runes.  But, at the same time.. one of my issues with the previous title was that it was too grindy.  I did not find it fun to do 100 Bhaal runs every day to get some good gear.  They have made a lot of changes to reduce the grind in that aspect. 

I like the blacksmith and hopefully the Mystic will make a reappearance in the future.  Those are interesting time sinks that were not present in previous titles.  I like the ability to customize your spells and abilities, another feature that was absent in previous titles.  I like how the game is displayed through AI and improved graphics.  I like the physics that are a huge improvement over previous titles.  They listened to the community and darkened the appearance of their game.  I feel that Diablo 3 offers so much more positive than negative.  None of the negatives are game-breakers in my opinion. 

In the end, you will be dead wrong.  Diablo 3 is already going to be one of the best selling, if not THE best selling RPG this year.  Torchlight and Path of Exile will be nothing but footnotes.  You can fight it all you want, but in the end, it's inevitible.

Originally posted by GeeTeeEffOh

 

---

Originally posted by Melangel

---

Originally posted by GeeTeeEffOh
 

---

Originally posted by Melangel

---

Originally posted by GeeTeeEffOh
 

---

Originally posted by Melangel

---

Originally posted by GeeTeeEffOh

It's not like we don't have a shinning example of what happens when a HUGE name company takes a very popular SPRPG title with a very well known IP and convert it into a very expensive to produce MMORPG.

---

Ok help me out GeeTee. I need a hint. FYI I had one cup of coffee today not 2. Also I slept half the day because I forgot to change my clocks. Not cool. Now my brain is working at half speed
Wondering if you mean Skyrim. Which I HOPE HAPPENS! And if it happens I hope they don't forget why people LOVE it.

---

 
My post in a roundabout way is saying that just because you have what appears to be all the components of a successful game, does not mean that is what you will get.

---

Got it and I agree.

---

 
But it doesn't mean autofail either. it just means that the developers need to do their home work, do their market research, find out who their potential player base is, find what they want. Pay attention to the basics 1st and not develop your MMO after your "Twist" and for god sake they can not assume that what worked for another game will automatically work for them.

---

And remember why your fans liked the single player version to begin with. Surely it's not impossible to merge these ideas together. I hope not at least.
Thinking of course of my dream for an ES mmo. Stick it on rails and that would suck to the high heavens

---

 

That approach was destiend to fail from the word go. It goes back to homework.

What makes an SPRPG tick is diametrically opposed to what makes an MMO tick.

The more and more soloing features in a game, the less and less it becomes an MMO.
They tried to make some kind of hybrid out of what they are known for and incorporate it into an MMO, but that is exactly what doomed them.

It would be like trying to build a hybrid car by fusing two FWD front ends together.

Sure it may start up, sure the motors may be the most efficient ever, but your car isn't really going anywhere.

There are exceptions.  UO was mostly a solo game.

Originally posted by TROLL_HARD

A lot of people have been complaining for the last couple of years that MMORPGs produced now are stale. I have been playing a lot of Skyrim for the last couple of days and thinking about how it is different to play a single-player game.

 

Obviously, MMORPGs are meant to be played with others. As far as I can tell, there have basically been two things you can do:

 

(1) PvE -- Since there are other people playing, you need stronger enemies (bosses) and a motivation (loot). So there is the level up to learn your class and then raid for "endgame." You gain levels (and/or better gear through loot drops). You can have a bit of PvP in instanced "battlegrounds."

 

(2) PvP -- The other thing you can do with lots of people. Some MMORPGs are centered around this: Darkfall, Mortal Online, EVE, etc. They have a bit of PvE for when people need resources or to take a break. You either gain levels, or level up skills. These are for groups of people to fight other groups in clans, guilds, factions, or realms for whatever political or economic reasons.

 

Recently, in an attempt to dodge the charge of not innovating, some games are going to a seeming third option of:

 

(3) Dynamic Events -- But this is really a masked form of raid (Rift, with raid rifts), which is more spontaneous, quicker, and maybe more convenient: e.g., rifts, public quests. Or they can be PvP, like the PvP rifts in Rift. I'm not sure what GW2 is going to do here. Is this really a third category? Or is it a form of (1) and (2) either separetly or hybridized?

 

Here are the questions I have: 

 

• What else can you do in an MMORPG? 
• How might an Elder Scrolls MMORPG possibly be different from the above? And how could it live up to the Elder Scrolls single-player world most of us know and love?
• Is GW2 really any different?
• What is the future of innovation for MMORPGs; or do we have everything we can possibly, except graphics will just get better?
• Having missed these games in their prime, how were UO and SWG different from the above (1)-(3) (if they were)

 

EDIT: You might be able to add some kind of simulation option like the Sims, where you get a house (a lot of people would probably go for player housing, but no devs seem to want to go for it for some reason), you can dress up ( lot of people like cosmetic items and pets), and socialize. Is this a possibility? Have any games done this? Let's call it:

 

(4) Simulation + other people -- This contains (1)-(3) above, as well as the choice to stay in a city, have a house, do quests in town and level up your sim/avatar. Is this a possible future for MMORPGs? Is it feasible? How would it look?

 

 

Sigh..

Reading posts like these really made me feel old, and I'm only 28 years old.

Your third option is simply a conduit to make 1 and 2 more accessible.  It's not even really a stand-alone #3 option.  You hit on housing.  Housing a nice money and time sink for the players.  That could be #3.  Firstly, there is finding a nice spot to place your new home.  Secondly, there is the constant changing of the exterior and interior of your home.  Decorating works in line with a #4 option.  That option is meaningful crafting.  Player crafted items that mean something in the game world.  Carpentry for home decoration.  Engineering for siege machines and structure upgrades.  Architecture for house design and obviously your typical blacksmithing, leatherworking, alchemy, tailoring, first aid, among others.  Also, your normal gathering skills.  Most MMORPG's make all of these things an afterthought.  No more than a itme sink that ends up being pointless due to the best items being found from boss drops.  Then there is a #5 option that should include something that most developers ignore.  Open world exploration.  Vast oceans with islands dotting the sea.  Carpenters and architects building boats for players, players taking those boats out to sea.  Exploring the islands, exploring underwater, pirating, sea monsters, or just sitting out there by yourself or with a friend.. fishing.  Angling profession can be time consuming and being a cook as a profession comes from this.  Exploring is really underrated.  These other things do not involve fighting either(sans sea battles), so they truly are legitimate alternate options.  Then there is #6, it's something that LoTR made fun.  Composing music.  There way was pretty crude, but it worked and some people made some really cool songs or even covered some of their favorite music in the game.  It was mostly a social thing though, as it did not drive the economy in any way.  #7 I suppose would be playing the market, but that's more of a logic thing.  It's not what I would call content.  But, in some older games, you could set up your own shop vendor at your house or certain market areas inside cities.. and sell your wares that you acquired by PvP, PvE or playing the market.

Which MMO's have RMT built into the game?  Don't say Diablo, as it's not a MMO.  I'll remember to avoid your list of RMT MMO's.  I already avoid any other play to win games.

Originally posted by Dragonantis

Most people actually like Wow, but they tend to dramatise their hate to fit in with the current crowd, or because they cant think of anything else to post.

Link?

Then this must be true too.  Most people don't like WoW, but it's currently played by all of their friends and family, so they haven't left yet.  They really dislike WoW, and even though they play it, they spend their time here complaining about it. 

See, we can both say random generalized things without any sort of proof behind it.  Fun, no?

Originally posted by Quenchster

I don't think people understand what world objectives in MMORPG PvP combat are for. While they are an RPG element they have a greater importance. Those things are meant to rally members of all factions into an area so there is a place to fight over. WoW World PvP doesn't have that, so the players make their own. The Alliance held onto the Crossroads to deny the Horde access to the NPCs, but the true objective that the Alliance had was to stir up the nearby beehive, Orgrimmar, without having all the bees come out at once.

I played WoW for three years.. and been part of quite a few Crossroads raids.  I was never once stopped from using NPC's.  I guess I'm a liittle confused here.

Originally posted by FrodoFragins

There's a reason why WOW is the standard for MMOs and UO and EQ are just footnotes.

Are you being serious?  UO is the GRANDFATHER of the game you call WoW.  Have some respect. 

I just wanted to point out that you didn't get attacked in the Barrens unless you attacked the enemy.  So, no, the Alliance didn't prevent anyone from questing.  Now if it did prevent young players from questing, then the 'epic' moment would have some meaning to it.  Otherwise, it's just a random skirmish that really has no reason for it.

I also want to point this out to some of the other posters here.  When you post something on these forums, they are subject to the scrutiny of others.  A forum is a place for people to discuss things.  Often times, in these forums, people disagree on things.  As long as you're not insulting the posters themselves or being overly derrogitory and trolling, you should be able to post your own opinions.  You don't have to agree with it, but don't insult people who do and are trying to be nice about it.

Glad he had his epic moment, no matter how meaningless or fruitless that I think the moment is. 

Originally posted by nomatics856

even at a low level, at level 10, just in the cross roads, questing in the barrens, NPC was like you gotta collect 12 bird beaks, I was like DAMNIT, and grinding and questing these birds, I heard the drums of war go off, alliance attacking cross roads, they was every where, I was like aw naw son, aw naw. Even at level 10 I knew I couldnt do much, but whats this? Not just level 60s, not just level 50s, but players of all levels from 10 to 60 attacking the cross roads, knowing the Xroads was a  loss cause and running for my life in the distance I saw THE HORDE and not just players but THE HORDE, a whole raid coming in defense of the cross roads, all levels, all races, all classes.

 

It was a brutal war,as I watched from the hills and the sidelines, AOE was every where, bodies every where, the alliance being pushed back from the X-roads to astrannar, thats when the most epic war occured, lasting for hours on end, Astrannar vs Splintertree Post, pushing the alliance back to astrannar, thinking we won, a raid  was coming behind us, as my hunter was picking off the level 10s and 12s to the sideline, we soon became fully surrounded by all sides, even though we lost at the end, even though we all died, even though we were all surrounded we did not go down with out a fight, we did not give up, we shown that day the power of the horde on that server was feirce.

That's cool.  Everyone should have these experiences.  Let me ask you this though.  What did the Horde gain from this?  Or perhaps more importantly, what did the Horde lose from this experience?  Experience?  Pride?  Territory?  Resources?  Loot?  Faction buffs?  Reputation?  No?

Hmm, I seem to recall UO fights being a little more important due to these things.  All you lose in WoW is a little time to run back to your corpse.  Again, I'm glad you had such a great time, but my greatest moments were in UO, no doubt about it.  Everything had meaning in games like UO, which is why I no longer play MMO's.  They have lost their meaning.

A lot of people just don't like the eastern theme and focus.  That's all.  Get over it.

Originally posted by mrcjevans

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by mrcjevans

Easily Darkfall Online

 

Example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBh28-6myKA

 

aim based... skill etc

Aim based pushes a huge portion of your player base away.  Maybe you like playing in an empty world, I don't.  There's a lot more that goes into picking the best PvP system to date than just PvP and what you like.

 

Source? exactly... don't comment on stuff you know nothing about. OP asked for peoples opinions... not their critique on other posts.

 

And ofcourse we have Darkfall 2.0 on the horizon :D

My source is what we call subscription numbers of the above mentioned game.  It's a combat system that pushes away players who do not have a twitch skill set when it comes to video games, so my other source is common sense.  I've played nearly every single combat system out there, I know plenty about it.  What do you know?  Exactly.

I gave my opinion.  Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it is not an opinion.

And do you honestly believe 2.0 will do much of anything for that game?  It won't, I hope it does, but I know it won't.

Originally posted by mrcjevans

Easily Darkfall Online

 

Example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBh28-6myKA

 

aim based... skill etc

Aim based pushes a huge portion of your player base away.  Maybe you like playing in an empty world, I don't.  There's a lot more that goes into picking the best PvP system to date than just PvP and what you like.

I'd say that it's a toss up between UO, DAoC, and WAR. 

UO had meaningful combat, from small skirmishes to faction wide combat.  There wasn't much in the way of meaningful territory or resource control, at least nothing hard coded into the game.  Even as old as it was, it was pretty balanced.  Though again, the larger scale combat was done more as events or based off controlling a city.  So it had it's flaws.  Plus, it's obviously outdated.

DAoC didn't have anything in the way of solo PvP other than the rare occasion that you didn't find yourself face to face with a zerg in the frontiers.  Though, it was probably one of the most strategic and balanced combat systems to date.  There were hard coded rewards gained from relic capture that affected your entire faction.  There were dungeons and quests that opened up, which you could fight for control of.  There were massive siege battles as well, and your guild could claim keeps and let their flag fly as a warning to all attackers.  Though, like I said, it lacked any solo PvP due to land restrictions.  The lack of PvP arenas really made this game shine.  As nearly everyone participated.

WAR is in a similar boat as DAoC.  WAR fixed the lack of solo PvP by allowing enemy factions to enter your lands.  You sieged and faught for areas of the map, such as small checkpoints that awarded your group.  Though, faction wide bonuses weren't there, you knew where the fight was and you could get to it quickly.  That, in my opinion is where WAR screwed up.  It became more of a PvP siege arena rather than a strategic war game.  LFG tools ruined it.  Also, there really wasn't anything to fight for other than gear and maybe a little pride if you were in an active guild.  Arenas at times, made the RvR lakes dead.  Another horrible design move.  Also the lack of dungeons, in or out of the RvR lakes. 

I really feel that if a company can take the best from all three of these, keep the combat simple, but the act of surviving a bit more difficult, someone would hit it big.  You need familiar combat and controls, solid UI, a very balanced and thought out PvP system, meaningful territory control for dungeons, resources, quests, and keeps, solid grouping systems, a very clean territory map, and out of the way of players who like to avoid combat, I think you'll be close to perfection.

I've heard that EVE has a decent system too, but I haven't actually played it.

Don't be mad at the players.  They will do anything that they are allowed to do, and even try to break rules if possible.

Instead, speak up to the developers to make their games easier on new players.  Ask for safe cities and places to buy, sell, and trade your wares.  Perhaps sacrificing some sandbox elements to make the new player experience more enticing.  Features such as levels, instanced newbie dungeons that certain levels can't access, skill and spell system that is familiar to them, a modified loot system for younger players, no experience loss for younger players, safe starter cities that are well protected and secluded from the rest of the world, player friendly UI and tutorials, starter quests to familiarize players to the intricasies of the game, a harsh murder system, more ways to disengage from a fight, third person perpective that allows you to zoom out like most themeparks, a familiar combat system that makes new players feel more welcome, etc.

I don't think gankers and griefers help their game, but you have them in all types of games.  They aren't an issue in most themepark games because new players are often eased into contested areas.  They become familiar with the game before they have to worry about PvP.  Sandbox developers would be wise to understand and adopt an easy to learn, hard to master mentality.

All you had to do was google Game of Thrones MMO...

Originally posted by googlemo

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by googlemo

All around us nowdays carebear games such as everquest, Runes of magic, Allods online, RIFT, aion, wow, even lineage 2 became like this with only difference in hard core grind.  So my question is this, would you like to play a game with hard open world PVP(such as lineage 2) with real risks on stake(if you're killed by another player you lose a considerate amount of XP or maybe some loot) but that game should also inspire pvp, for example for you to achieve better equipment or a better place for grind you will have no choice but to fight over it, cause only a small amount of people can have access to it? Also a game WITHOUT freaking instances!!!

And once again, would you like to play such a difficult and challenging game?

 

P.S. if you have some titles in mind write about them, but with as much information as possible.

Nope, go play Darkfall.  It's almost exactly what you just described.

 

The problem is that it's PvP focused.  A sandbox can have PvP in it, but if that's the main focus, it fails.  It's been proven time and time again.  So while I'm looking for something that is like what you've described, I'd like that game to pander to all playstyles.  Not just one.

I didn't say that such a game PVP ONLY, there should be grinding, questing, farming, crafting, and PvP encouraged by other aspects as well!  DF is a good example, but the sad thing is that developers failed at finishing the game in time...

The part that I believe you have wrong is the part where you'd want PvP to be encouraged.  To what degree?

It's human nature to seek out conflict of some sort.  You can discourage PvP at every turn without hardcoding restrictions and people will still seek it out.  In order to have a large community base, you must not encourage PvP.  I'm not saying to remove all PvP aspects from the game, not by any means.  You can still have PvP arenas, guild wars, faction wars, territory control of resources and land, Naval and siege warfare, and similar mechanics within the game.  The idea is to not promote a focus on gankers and griefers.  In fact, you should focus on attempting to protect players who do not actively seek it out, but make it very accessible to players who do.  That's where I was going when saying that the game must cater to all playstyles to really have a strong chance at success.  I agree that mostly what you're looking for is realistic for a game.  In fact, thousands, if not millions have the same opinion.  It all comes down to the execution of features within your desired games.  That's where near every sandbox developer goes horribly wrong.

Originally posted by zimboy69

£49.99  digital edition
£64.99 digital delux edition


kinda feels like your buying a normal game with 2/3 months subs included

 

info from the link

https://buy.guildwars2.com/

No, this is fairly standard.  It might even be a little underpriced.

Originally posted by googlemo

All around us nowdays carebear games such as everquest, Runes of magic, Allods online, RIFT, aion, wow, even lineage 2 became like this with only difference in hard core grind.  So my question is this, would you like to play a game with hard open world PVP(such as lineage 2) with real risks on stake(if you're killed by another player you lose a considerate amount of XP or maybe some loot) but that game should also inspire pvp, for example for you to achieve better equipment or a better place for grind you will have no choice but to fight over it, cause only a small amount of people can have access to it? Also a game WITHOUT freaking instances!!!

And once again, would you like to play such a difficult and challenging game?

 

P.S. if you have some titles in mind write about them, but with as much information as possible.

Nope, go play Darkfall.  It's almost exactly what you just described.

The problem is that it's PvP focused.  A sandbox can have PvP in it, but if that's the main focus, it fails.  It's been proven time and time again.  So while I'm looking for something that is like what you've described, I'd like that game to pander to all playstyles.  Not just one.

Originally posted by Wolfhammer

I think I just spooged in my jeans. PLEASE don't fuck this up dev's !!

Requirements

1. Sandbox (ES as a themepark would be a massive failure for purists)

2. No levels (ES has levels, and I'd actually prefer it WITH a skill system)

3. Classless (Yes, but there better be spells and abilities for every type of class type, or most)

4. Minimal instances (world open as possible) (And hopefully mostly open dungeons)

5. All core game mechanics intact (especially the perks) (More or less a skill tree, but yes)

6. Decent ragdoll physics and not pre animated deaths. (I like this)

7. P2P (Completely agree)

8. NOT browser based (Again, completely agree, and I don't think it will be)

9. Front kick ala Dark Messiah Might and Magic :) (Never played this, so you'd have to explain it)

10. Upgraded crafting system (Updated, expanded, and meaningful)

11. Best equipment crafted (Where mobs drop resources, not bears dropping swords)

12. Boss mobs and raid bosses drop materials for the best crafted gear or lesser equipment if aapropriate for the mob type (See above)

13. GW2 style PvP (my personal preference) (I believe anything tab targetted would work well, no FPV and FPS, it doesn't work in MMO's)

Will be very interesting to see how they handle lore wise, how the world is full of dragon-born ??  Also, how are they gonna handle the magic and shouts etc?  Theres some insane spells/shouts/perks that would render a character a PvP griefing killing machine and rather OP such as the attacks from stealth and thieving abilities.

I would hope that none of us are dragonborn.  We can't be the hero, like in the ES single player RPG's.  We need to be all the adventurers that inhabit the world.  This is supposed to take place, I believe a full millenia before any of the ES games.  So shouts would be out entirely.  They would obviously have to rework the magic systems for balancing, as ES games have never been balanced for multiplayer activity.  Third person, tab targetting, good zoom distance and a balanced skill system would make it possible.  In Skyrim, they got rid of a few spells and moved some things around.  I don't see why they couldn't do that in the MMO.  You'd have to create a lot of melee abilities that were never in the ES games though in order to transition to a more MMO friendly combat system.

Interesting times and very exciting if this rumour turns out to be true.  Will deffinitely be keeping my eyes open for news on this one.

No doubt

I played WoW for several years.  It was anything but a non-grind.  It was the first game that I've ever played that made me feel like it was more of a second job than a conduit of relieving my frustration separate from the real world.  Getting to max level never really felt like a grind.  However, it's my opinion that everything else after that did feel like a grind.  The endless pursuit of the carrot on a stick.  Raiding a few days out of every week, sometimes for longer than six hours a night.  Just to get some gear to be ready for the next dungeon.  Only to do the same thing, yet again, to get ready for the next dungoen.  I never liked arena PvP, though I understand it's usefulness.  I always felt that your actions within that arena were meaningless other than potentially having a cool title.  You grind for countless hours in arenas, just to get gear and wait for the new gear avaiable for the next expansion.  There is no meaningful territory control.  Cross server BG's made server community meaningless due to not having territory control.  LFG tool made the world meaningless, I can't stand instant gratification tools in MMORPG's.  I believe they ruin the game and make people even more lazy than they already are.  Then the reputation systems in place to gain better gear is everything that defines the word grind.  I spent months at times to get an exalted trinket that didn't really matter in the long run.  As far as grind goes, I believe WOW is one of the most grindy games in the history of MMO's.  Crafting is just a time sink, as it has nearly zero reason for being in the game.  Player crafted gear is almost meaningless.

HARD = Challenge

It doesn't always mean grind, but in this case, it does.  That's just my opinion.