Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

so if you choose to not participate in a certain DE it wont just automatically fail?

cuz thats what i figured when i saw that thing he was talkin about with that bridge that like got destroyed cuz i saw that in some article or somethin.it looked like if you came acrossed a DE and choose not to do it then it would just fail

but i dont know,it kinda seems like from videos ive watched the DE's dont actually start until you choose to start them

i think that bridge thing from the trailor is what i was lookin at and got the idea that if you ignored a DE it just failed.cuz it showed it before,and i guess the guy eather ignored it,or it failed and it showed the bridge destroyed afterwords

 

You can't choose to start a DE. It just happens. There's no way to start them, at least not that's known of. There may be some breaking point in the number of people in the area or something, and if there is I'm sure people will figure it out eventually. But there's no way to just turn them on and off. What you might have seen is something starting a Heart, but those aren't DEs.

And yes, if you don't participate, it will fail, unless there are others participating then it just won't include you and thus won't scale to include you, until you start helping.

hmm,well.what was the guy doing in the video i watched where he was walkin up to someone.and clicked on him and was readin some stuff and afterwords it looked like a DE started

i saw it in a video.figured thats how DE's started.or was that a heart,i could try to find the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CyqGJHTjes

 

there,it looked like it didnt actually start until the dude started movin.kinda like,if i clicked on something and did somethin it would start,i figured dynamic events were always going and you just happened to see one and was like "this looks cool i think ill check it out"

 

 

That's an event chain. Many events do that, he was just there when it happened. In that particular event, there's a Dredge mine, and that NPC is who you give the pieces of metal to. You see the timer counting down in the beginning of the video, in the upper right corner? That's how long is left till the event ends, they do that so people who still haven't turned in their items have a chance to run in and get points for contributing. Then, the next event in the chain starts, which if I remember correctly, are the dredge attempting to repair the towers outside the mine. Afterward is the next part in the chain, where that npc needs to make it into the mine, and thus has to be escorted, ending with the final piece of the chain with a group-only Dredge boss. At least I think it's group only, he hits pretty damn hard, I don't see him being soloed.

I might have the order of that chain mixed up a bit, but you get the idea. The correlation between the actions of the player in that video and the starting of the events are coincidental only.

Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

so if you choose to not participate in a certain DE it wont just automatically fail?

cuz thats what i figured when i saw that thing he was talkin about with that bridge that like got destroyed cuz i saw that in some article or somethin.it looked like if you came acrossed a DE and choose not to do it then it would just fail

but i dont know,it kinda seems like from videos ive watched the DE's dont actually start until you choose to start them

i think that bridge thing from the trailor is what i was lookin at and got the idea that if you ignored a DE it just failed.cuz it showed it before,and i guess the guy eather ignored it,or it failed and it showed the bridge destroyed afterwords

 

You can't choose to start a DE. It just happens. There's no way to start them, at least not that's known of. There may be some breaking point in the number of people in the area or something, and if there is I'm sure people will figure it out eventually. But there's no way to just turn them on and off. What you might have seen is something starting a Heart, but those aren't DEs.

And yes, if you don't participate, it will fail, unless there are others participating then it just won't include you and thus won't scale to include you, until you start helping.

He has something of a point, actually, but it's EA's own fault. The game, because of the IP, appealed to people who aren't even MMOers, or gamers at all. There are plenty of people who like Star Wars that don't play video games, and I'm sure many of them bought into this, not to mention all the single-player gamers that might have expected KOTOR. I've seen the argument that SWTOR is like a single-player MMO, but it's still not KOTOR.

So of course, once the shiny of the Star Wars label wore off, the subs declined. But everyone who was actually an MMOer saw that coming, even if they didn't want to admit it. I don't know how this is a shock to EA.

I assume by "hardcore" they meant people who actually play MMOs regularly. But, lol...they really should consult people who play these games before talking about them.

I've thought about it but honestly, I've had a lot of DE's fail on their own. Failed to protect the towns, failed to save the water supply, failed to protect the Bear totem, failed failed failed. It seems easiest to fail, ironically, when there are MORE people, because players as a whole haven't quite yet grasped how to stay alive when an army is coming at you. The die, and before long the enemies are outnumbering the surviving players, even when there are others trying to get them up. 

Really unless you're planning to be part of the wiki that picks these events apart, I don't see the point in failing the events. You're bound to do it naturally at some point.

Also that bridge from the Manifesto trailer? I ~was~ on it when it exploded. You die ;3 It's a very long fall. The event for that is the 15+ Norn area, near the middle of the map just northeast of the town the Dredge keep trying to take over, iirc. It was getting bombed by Svanir and I went chasing after one holding a bomb, and didn't realize there was another trailing just behind him. You'd need more than one person to do that event successfully I think, or be super fast and heavy-hitting, because it's a long bridge and bombers come in from both sides.

I've never heard about this. However, earlier in the development they mentioned weather having an affect on skills, for instance rain making Lightning attacks stronger. Or was it Water? Something like that. That's the only thing that comes to my mind.

I'm sure there's a "Forest" Gump joke in here somewhere, but it's eluding me.

There's only a few combinations you can do on your own and even then, it's only certain classes. They're called cross-profession for a reason, after all, and for the most part there's not enough coordination during an event to do them intentionally. You have a better chance of making use of them in dungeons, but even then there's so much dodging and running around, it's not really worth the trouble to try and plan for it.

Basically, it's one of those things that's supposed to happen naturally and spontaneously. Sort of like a crit, except that you can't plan a build around it.

I was genuinely enjoying the crap out of this game until they changed the item mall. You needed cash to upgrade EVERYTHING, weapons, spells, get keys, etc, but that wasn't the bad part. Up until a specific patch, you could actually get that money ingame with some grinding, just enough that you could afford the essentials. But then that dreaded patch came, and that was no longer possible. The money still dropped, but it was so low you'd spend the majority of your gameplay feeling underpowered. For the amount of money you'd have to spend, there are far better games to play.

I don't know if that's since been changed though (has it? Anyone know?) but if not, it's a game to avoid. The power sold in that item mall make Perfect World look like a penny jar.

Game of the Year for a game that even the press agrees has highly flawed combat? It's got great storyline and some neat quests yeah, but that's not enough. I'm not sure how long those great quests will hold people with that combat constantly getting in the way. That's just not GotY material, dudes.

Still a good game, though. Someone said it earlier, it's more likely to end up most "improved" game. My bet is it'll have a fairly smooth release in terms of bugs, and as the game exists, they'll continue tuning and updating and hopefully, get it to the point it really needs to be. Then, we'll talk.

Right now, I don't see anything beating GW2. It has elements that other games do better, definitely, but unlike those other games, there's nothing it does ~badly~. Everything else has some sort of toss-up or sacrifice involved; yeah the combat's great but the questiing sucks! Questing is great but combat is terrible! Voice overs and content but PvP blows! Etc., etc., etc,.

8's across the board will still win against a 10 and a bunch of 5's.

Originally posted by gomiller43

From what I've seen, the only reason it's not being done is because...?

Yeah, I don't even know. I've poked around a bit and it seems like there's an issue with the rights to the whole shishkebab.

So if some one were to make an RPG set in the same place as the books series, and yet it took place long after the events in book 7 and in more places than just the U.K. and Hogwarts. What issues would some one have to expect, considering that they would want to throw some ads in there to help take care of the costs?

It's not being done because Rowling doesn't want it done. She's anti-video game. Not like nutjob about it, but she definitely prefers children read versus playing video games, which isn't exactly wrong. While yes, the universe she created has some adult appeal as well, everyone knows full well that it would be children flocking to it because of the history and storyline, and she'd end up a hypocrit on an issue she evidently feels pretty strongly about.

Yes, I know there are single-player games, supposedly that was part of the movie deals or something and she had only so much control over that. She seemed pretty adamant against an MMO though. Instead she created something similar, but it's free and works more like an online reading environment with some side puzzles here and there, more like a social network than anything. As far as I've read, she's not planning for it to ever be anything more than that, especially since she's dropped the series and is looking to create more "adult" fiction.

Got my issues with TERA but this isn't one of them. Weapon skins, big deal. Doesn't add to in-game power, still equal footing. I could understand if TERA was like Dragon Nest where pretty much all equipment looks the same from level 1 to level 50 unless you buy costumes, but TERA doesn't have that issue. Plenty of cool looking things in the game, why you'd want to spend $10 on it I don't know, but no point begruding those who will.

Originally posted by BarCrow

I know what many people mean. Just the other day ..living in Florida I went to Disney World. I paid full price to enter the park but I'll be damned if they didnt charge me for all the food and beverages as well as a pair of Mickey Mouse ears and a Pluto keychain. Pay to play at Disney World and Cash shop. Bullshit!!

 

I hope you're smart enough to realize what's wrong with the analogy you just made. What TERA's doing isn't a big deal, but that doesn't mean video games should suddenly start breaking your bank by charging you both admission + sub then more for every fun thing there is to do. That's not a path, even those more liberal with cash shops, would want games to take.

Getting 120 hours out of a game doesn't make it worth $60 if the whole ride is mediocre at best. Whoever thought that many "kill x quests" belongs in a single-player game deserves to have this kind of failure placed squarely on their shoulders. It's not even acceptable in an MMO these days, but a single player? Come on, now. A single-player RPG is a chance for a game to shine, a chance for the player to evolve and change the world in ways you can't in an MMO without ruining the chance for others to participate. 

So no, no shock to me the game failed. I actually liked the combat, I liked the aesthetic too, as well as the character development. But the storyline was incredibly cliche, and the rest of the game lacked effort in its conception, as if they were working the animators and modelers so hard they forgot to make the writers and designers do their part, too.

It's sad when games and studios fail, but I still maintain that pain and loss are the best way to learn a lesson. The more of these stories their are, hopefully the sooner studios will learn that you can't just churn out a bogus game for a quick cash grab. 

Weeeeeell I didn't try a Warrior, but I did level my Thief during the stress test. It was by FAR more difficult than any of the ranged classes, particularly the Mesmer (though I found the Mesmer easier than anything, even elementalists, so might not be a fair comparison). However! Once I got all my weapon skills and a couple of utilities, I found I was really able to shine. In face, during a boss event, I enjoyed the irony of being the only one who didn't die in the small group I was in, while also being the one to finish the boss when everyone else was downed. 

It took work, though. There's no getting around it, playing a melee character takes far more strategy than a ranged character. However, this was the beginning levels; I had no traits, no crafted gear, nada. So, I'm actually taking back my reservations about melee characters, which I was pretty vocal about from the first BWE. I think they're pretty swell, actually. 

That's for PvE. For PvP I already know they're sick. If you let a Thief, Warrior of a Guardian get close to you in WvWvW, you're in trouble. They'll be smacking you around, stacking bleed, knocking you down, etc. Fortunately this is NOT the kind of PvP game where people ever have the potential to 1 shot you, so you still have time to react, heal and get some distance between you, but still. Melee is anything but useless in PvP.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by WhiteLantern

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by Lobotomist

 

 

 

Diablo is (creator) of Hack&Slash genre based on randomly generated content. Like in its predecesor "roguelike" , each time you start the game its completely different because everything is randomly generated.

 

 

 

 

Crazy, are there still people who believe that Diablo was the creator of hack'n slash RPG genre or I just misunderstood that line?

I read is the same way as well.  I'd bet they didn't know that Diablo is a roguelike.  They likely don't even know what a roguelike is or played one back when they first came into being.

I don't know. I find it ineteresting that people would make the Diablo-to-Rogue comparison. It's kinda like the MUD-to-MMO comparison: it is a bit of a stretch.

MUD ... now you are tripping :P

Actually, I was playing hack/slash ARPGs since Ys and Gauntlet. I'll give you though that, Diablo is the first ARPG I remember on the computer, but I didn't get into computer gaming until my late teens so I could have missed some things.

Good, taking them long enough. I feel like this game's been in beta longer than I've been an MMOer.

Stop it >_>

This happened to me in the past, but I didn't need all that info. They requested it, but I'd had a new credit card by then and didn't remember my CD key. I have them my physical info and home number and I got my account back. It took like 3 days, though, but not bad. I would have recommended you just send them the info you were able to find first but, I guess in the end making a new account works, too.

Originally posted by voltt

Just completed act I. I know i have seen some posts about completeing the whole game in 12hrs.

 

I think its a load of crap. I didnt even explore all of act 1, i missed some quests and some dungeons.

 

I stil spent about 6hrs in act 1 alone.

 

 

There's a kotaku post about a group beating the game in 5-ish hours, actually. Group of korean players who ironically, didn't get to collect the loot because of server issues. That doesn't mean that you can't take your time and stretch the game out, achieve 100% completion of things, replay it, etc. But by the same token, even with a ridiculously mad rush, I couldn't beat any game I own in 5 hours, except one: Torchlight. The first one. The debut game from a studio that was too poor (at the time) to finish their game, and so had to release it like it was and hope for the best.

Just something to mull around.

Originally posted by TheDor

Originally posted by stayBlind

Worlds in WvW are matched up based on their ranking, so that high-ranked worlds will battle other high-ranked worlds, and low-ranked worlds will battle other low-ranked worlds

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

You don't have to buy the transfer with real cash; you can buy gems for in game gold and transfer that way.

I know that. What happens to the worst world? That's right, they're always sitting at the bottom playing against the 2nd worst and 3rd worst. The 2nd and 3rd worst will change week to week, but if a server is continually losing, it's going to keep losing, not magically get better, other worlds would just need to get worse, and then that world is the new worst.

 

I realize you can buy gems with in game cash, but like I said, do you really want to log onto an empty server and then go farm for a few months to be able to afford to move to a more populated server? How does that help the other people on your server? It just leaves them with 1 fewer person, making the problem worse.

There's something missing from the logic here. In order for there to be a rank, someone will undoubtedly have to be at the bottom. That may end up being you, it may not. But someone WILL have to be "the worst". That's not something that's going to change. Obviously, if the worst server starts winning, they're no longer the worst, and they'll move up in the ranks. However it's true, that if that happens to be a lower populated server, their rise in the ranks may at some point cap out due to being outnumbered.

WvWvW does have a cap to the amount of people from each server that can play at once, and you'd have to queue to join once that cap is reached. That means that yes, a lower pop server could stand a chance against a higher pop one, provided that lower pop has a good amount of people that like PvP. If you end up on a server that doesn't like PvP, that's hardly the game's fault (not yours, either) and that's what server transfers are for.

As for empty servers, GW2 like any other MMO will see a decline in players. There will likely be more coming and going due to the payment style, but overall people aren't as willing to make one particular MMO their "home" anymore. Variety, n' stuff. So eventually there will be servers that are more empty than others, and the only way to avoid that is to get involved in actively building a lasting community on your server. That's it. There's nothing else you can do to fight the eventuality of it. Maybe you won't end up on that server, maybe you will, but short of consolidating servers (which I'm sure they are willing to do) it's unavoidable.

Originally posted by Paragus1

Originally posted by orbitxo

was wondering when you guys would talk about  server issues. its sad- after a beta stress weekend, they would fall  worse than the weekend itself.

 

Tell that to this guy...

"Error 37!? What the f*ck are the other 36!?" bout choked on my coffee with that one.