I know we don't know much about dungeons in GW2, other than the fact that they are in the game. It was mentioned that the mansion in Beetletun has a dungeon in it. I made this thread to discuss what you would like to see from the dungeons in GW2.
Personally I would like to see multilevel dungeons with a randomized map so that each playthrough is not exactly the same. I think it would add a lot of replay value to each dungeon if the map changes every time. Failing that dungeons with multiple paths to the end would also be nice.
I would also like to see some non-enemy obstacles in the dungeons. Things like traps or locked doors to which you need to find the keys. That is one aspect I liked about dungeons in Eotn and would like to see it again in GW2.
What would you like to see in the dungeons of GW2?|||Dungeons and elite areas: have ways to do a bit at a time, preferably not in sequential order. Slavers was good, except I think there`s no need to keep the last boss last... instead I`d have the end chest open-able only for those people who did all bosses, so you don`t have to pass just because you didn`t do X or Y boss first.|||I would like to see dungeons that aren't dungeons.
For example, I'm hoping the Beetletun Mansion is of this kind.
In other words, I want a place where I can test my mettle and teamwork fighting through traps, enemies, events and epic bosses while skimming through some general treasure until you obtain your final reward. But these places don't necessary need to have the whole dark, underground and claustraphobic feeling that dungeons usually have.
Torchlight is a nice example. Its dungeon levels vary in theme while you progress, even though you're still underground.
-------------------
Besides the theme, I also want to see traps (either mechanical like mines or poison jets or monster ambushes), bonus areas that give you an advantage (treasure chests, buffs, healing and ressurecting your teamates or even revealing the boss's weakness).
-------------------
I also want to see puzzles. It's always a pleasure playing a Zelda game because of its dungeons and clever puzzles (having great bosses also helps). Make it better by having some puzzles requiring cooperation. Don't make them require the full team, since having less party members should be a valid way to increase the challenge yourself, but having that option is always nice.
---------------------
I don't want to see randomized dungeons.
Okay, to be fair, it would be okay to have 1 randomized dungeon. The problem with randomized dungeons (and the reason why Torchlight ended up getting boring) is that you can't really make unique content, (for example, the Bettletun Mansion's party crashing scenario) or unique bosses. I prefer playing through unique content then through a re-skinned dungeon of the usual monster-bashing that ends up in a boss-skill-smasher without any feel of epicness.|||Quote:
Okay, to be fair, it would be okay to have 1 randomized dungeon. The problem with randomized dungeons is that you can't really make unique content, or unique bosses.
Nonsense.
I expect them to make dungeons in a DII fashion, which includes random layouts. However I also expect them to make 'unique content'* like the party crashing mansion in Beetletun. That's simply the start which is scripted, planned and designed. Why not have a randomized descent toward the final Beetletun Mansion boss? Why not have other missions have sections (beginning, mid or end) with that heavy level of design, like the Beetletun partycrashing? Why not have them have some kind of randomization as well? Randomization of content is massively important in preventing PvE gimmicks.
*why isn't randomized content unique? It's probably 'more unique' as oxymoronic as that sounds, since the experience is by definition repeated less often. But tangential linguistics discussion so ok whatever.|||Quote:
Nonsense.
I expect them to make dungeons in a DII fashion, which includes random layouts. However I also expect them to make 'unique content'* like the party crashing mansion in Beetletun. That's simply the start which is scripted, planned and designed.
See, and here is the problem.
It's not just the start that is scripted.
The Party Crashing is nothing more then an excuse for a theme.
It's the specific location of puzzles and traps, that take into account the floor layout and theme that a random generator, by today's standards, can't really accomplish.
To use a great example, look at Zelda dungeons (yes, I keep talking about Zelda, because those are dungeons done good, everyone bear with me).
Do you really beleive a randomized system would work on any part (start, middle, end) of any dungeon? Of course not. The puzzles sometimes take into account the whole dungeon map, sometimes entires floors. A random generator can't think ahead like this, at least, not for now.
Quote:
Why not have a randomized descent toward the final Beetletun Mansion boss? Why not have other missions have sections (beginning, mid or end) with that heavy level of design, like the Beetletun partycrashing? Why not have them have some kind of randomization as well? Randomization of content is massively important in preventing PvE gimmicks.
Look at Torchlight.
Did you find those dungeons fun after the 10th time you entered them? I didn't. You were still running from Point A to Point B killing everything in your sight until the next floor.
As I explained above, the fun core of a good dungeon is in the way to effectively force you to think on how to advance. A generator cannot, I repeat, cannot create great puzzles, only mediocre ones at best. A generator is able to place ambushes and traps, but it cannot generate a highly scripted chase scene that leads you into a trap which ends up being part of a multi-floor puzzle. A generator cannot create unique and interesting boss fights "on the fly" either. It can grab a pre-existing model, slap him some stat upgrades and call him a boss, but we all know how that turned out in GW1.
It can, however, place these pre-created scripts at random in each dungeon playthrough, but that ends up not solving anything.
You're still going to have people create the best strategies on how to tackle these randomly placed events. You'll just have to factor in the possibility of that particualr event not showing up, which is not a problem.
Quote:
*why isn't randomized content unique? It's probably 'more unique' as oxymoronic as that sounds, since the experience is by definition repeated less often. But tangential linguistics discussion so ok whatever.
My bad here. When I mean't unique, I mean't original content that gives you enjoyement. In leet speak, epic stuff.|||Theres no challenge in randomised content
or you get a set of enemies that suddenly perma wipe your team because of the way the game spawned them
not to mention that people like a ballpark idea of how long its going to take to get from the start to finish of something
a randomised dungeon could be anything|||I wouldn't like randomized dungeons.
Partly because I don't think the result would look believable - I thought about Diablo and how all those levels looked just like that - randomly thrown together, making no sense.
But also because I like knowing what to expect from a dungeon where I went before. Or read about, of course.
OTOH, I wouldn't like the same dungeon template copied several times. That's just as bad.
Of course, a randomized dungeon could be introduced with a good story explanation. But it should be an exception.|||Quote:
I would like to see dungeons that aren't dungeons.
Quote:
Dungeons and elite areas: have ways to do a bit at a time, preferably not in sequential order.
Varying dungeon themes are a plus I think, and a way to pause a dungeon run and resume it later would also be very helpful.
Quote:
I also want to see puzzles. It's always a pleasure playing a Zelda game because of its dungeons and clever puzzles (having great bosses also helps). Make it better by having some puzzles requiring cooperation. Don't make them require the full team, since having less party members should be a valid way to increase the challenge yourself, but having that option is always nice.
I'm also a fan of the idea of putting in puzzles in the dungeons. Though perhaps you may have to make the puzzles optional to complete because otherwise some people may be unable to solve the dungeon because of the puzzles. Having the puzzles be optional but having them offer increased rewards from the dungeon would allow everyone to get the final reward but reward those who did go out of their way to solve the puzzles.
Quote:
As I explained above, the fun core of a good dungeon is in the way to effectively force you to think on how to advance. A generator cannot, I repeat, cannot create great puzzles, only mediocre ones at best. A generator is able to place ambushes and traps, but it cannot generate a highly scripted chase scene that leads you into a trap which ends up being part of a multi-floor puzzle. A generator cannot create unique and interesting boss fights "on the fly" either. It can grab a pre-existing model, slap him some stat upgrades and call him a boss, but we all know how that turned out in GW1.
I agree that generating a dungeon completely at random generally does not create an interesting and unique dungeon. Therefore I propose a dungeon having some unique rooms that do not change, while randomizing some of the content to add replay value. If ANet creates many different rooms, each with their own enemies, traps and puzzles you can make each dungeon unique but also interesting on every playthrough. Zelda dungeons are truly unique but they lose replay value very quickly since they are always the same every time you play.
Imagine the final dungeon of Ocarina of Time (the one with the main room leading to all the side rooms you had to complete in order to climb to the boss) with randomized content. The main room and the objectives at the end of each of the side rooms are still there, but now the path to those objectives changes. The path to the side fire objective could be the room filled with fire where you need to collect all the silver rupees (as it is now) or it could be a torch lighting puzzle or it could be a timed room where you need to kill enemies before the ceiling falls or something else entirely. The same would be true for all of the other side objectives.
The overall dungeon layout and the central objective would remain unique but the path to the objective would change each time, offering much better replay value.
However if random content still does not appeal would multiple set layouts of the dungeon be better in your opinion? That way if you play through the dungeon once you get floor 1A, and if you play a second time you get floor 1B. That way unique content can be created that also has replay value. It might take longer to create a bunch of entirely new unique floors though.|||I would like to see (and I am sure it will be) dungeons which do not borrow from other dungeons .
...
I would not mind seeing...
-A few dungeons set up with the event system where your choices can change the outcome of a dungeon.
-Some start and go straight through until the end dungeons.
-To have some random NPCs in some dungeons that can start further new personal story lines for you back "home".|||Quote:
I would like to see (and I am sure it will be) dungeons which do not borrow from other dungeons.
Always a good thing and one of the main reasons I did not like some of the dungeons in EotN.
Quote:
-A few dungeons set up with the event system where your choices can change the outcome of a dungeon.
That would be a cool idea. But I don't think it will happen. I get the impression events are supposed to be public things anyone can join in at any one time so I doubt you would find them in an instanced dungeon area which you can only enter as a party. You never know though.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Live and Let Dye
Kristen Perry has posted a new article on how dye works in GW2 on the ANet blog.
http://www.arena.net/blog/live-and-l...gw2-dye-system
Quote:
I�ve been thinking for months now about how to describe the new dye system to you, which has been completely redesigned and is much more flexible than the original. There�s one big change I knew would surprise the �dye hard� fans, so I figured I should reveal that information first. Besides, if we all have the collective gasp at the beginning, I�ll know at least everyone will have a full tank of oxygen in their brains to read the rest of the article.
Here�s the deal: there�s no more mixing.
There, I said it. Now here�s why it�s the bee�s knees!|||Im happy to see that you can dye more than 1 place on a single piece. Truly is interesting.|||What I was more impressed by were the pictures in the article.
The armor types, some of those armors on the Norn look straight dirty.|||This new dye system sounds fun. I'm curious to see how dyes will be unlocked.|||Great article. That just looks amazing. Can't wait to try it in game when it actually ships. And I must say some of those armors look amazing. Can we please get some more screens of those? Also:
Quote:
it would be a travesty to never have a long trench coat,
Could not agree more.|||Sounds like they want to make you pay for the really cool ones via the in-game store for real-world cash to me (in reference to "unlocking" outside the game). I'm going to sit on the sidelines when they release this till I find out more about all the microtransactions I THINK I see coming with GW2.|||Wow this sounds awesome! I love that we don't have to mix dyes anymore, and unlocking them once is great, so we don't have to buy 10 different colors of the dye every time we get a new armor. At least, that's what it sounds like - once you unlock the dye color you can get it for free. I hope so anyway.
But regardless, it's still cool that we can also dye more parts of our armor. And the armors in the pictures looked pic. I wonder if this will work the same for weapons.|||A couple things that jumped out at me that could use clarification.
1) "The dye hues themselves will be unlockable through various means, both in-game and out."
The last word worries me. I don't look forward to "deals" like "buy four character slots in the next week, and get the Leet Pink dye color, not available by any other means!" A word from a dev to squash these fears would be greatly appreciated.
2) "To ensure that the five races have their own identities, we’ve created a cultural palette that reflects the character of the species. This means a red color for a human may not look the same as a red color for a norn or charr."
I'm confused. Does this mean races get different colors at the start (turquoise for asura, aquamarine for sylvari, sky blue for humans, etc), or does it mean the same color looks differently depending on which race is wearing it?
And if it's the former (which I'm inclined to believe), wouldn't you just get all five racial palettes by rolling up a character of each race, negating the whole point?
Quote:
Wow this sounds awesome! I love that we don't have to mix dyes anymore, and unlocking them once is great, so we don't have to buy 10 different colors of the dye every time we get a new armor. At least, that's what it sounds like - once you unlock the dye color you can get it for free. I hope so anyway.
That is what it says. Dye are unlockables, not physical items. Which is awesome.|||Quote:
Sounds like they want to make you pay for the really cool ones via the in-game store for real-world cash to me (in reference to "unlocking" outside the game). I'm going to sit on the sidelines when they release this till I find out more about all the microtransactions I THINK I see coming with GW2.
I'm no insider so this is just an opinion based on my experiences with Anet. I would tend to believe that, if colors are offered for purchase, it would be like the skill packs in GWO - you can unlock them individually by playing, or purchase them all at once.|||Quote:
Sounds like they want to make you pay for the really cool ones via the in-game store for real-world cash to me (in reference to "unlocking" outside the game).
Seems likely, yes. At least for later made "special" colors.
OTOH, if all they sell are colors, who cares? Colors and costumes don't affect gameplay, they just make it more pretty.
There has to be a drawback to a subscription-free game. If it's no more than buyable pretties, I couldn't care less.
--
Interesting article nonetheless.
http://www.arena.net/blog/live-and-l...gw2-dye-system
Quote:
I�ve been thinking for months now about how to describe the new dye system to you, which has been completely redesigned and is much more flexible than the original. There�s one big change I knew would surprise the �dye hard� fans, so I figured I should reveal that information first. Besides, if we all have the collective gasp at the beginning, I�ll know at least everyone will have a full tank of oxygen in their brains to read the rest of the article.
Here�s the deal: there�s no more mixing.
There, I said it. Now here�s why it�s the bee�s knees!|||Im happy to see that you can dye more than 1 place on a single piece. Truly is interesting.|||What I was more impressed by were the pictures in the article.
The armor types, some of those armors on the Norn look straight dirty.|||This new dye system sounds fun. I'm curious to see how dyes will be unlocked.|||Great article. That just looks amazing. Can't wait to try it in game when it actually ships. And I must say some of those armors look amazing. Can we please get some more screens of those? Also:
Quote:
it would be a travesty to never have a long trench coat,
Could not agree more.|||Sounds like they want to make you pay for the really cool ones via the in-game store for real-world cash to me (in reference to "unlocking" outside the game). I'm going to sit on the sidelines when they release this till I find out more about all the microtransactions I THINK I see coming with GW2.|||Wow this sounds awesome! I love that we don't have to mix dyes anymore, and unlocking them once is great, so we don't have to buy 10 different colors of the dye every time we get a new armor. At least, that's what it sounds like - once you unlock the dye color you can get it for free. I hope so anyway.
But regardless, it's still cool that we can also dye more parts of our armor. And the armors in the pictures looked pic. I wonder if this will work the same for weapons.|||A couple things that jumped out at me that could use clarification.
1) "The dye hues themselves will be unlockable through various means, both in-game and out."
The last word worries me. I don't look forward to "deals" like "buy four character slots in the next week, and get the Leet Pink dye color, not available by any other means!" A word from a dev to squash these fears would be greatly appreciated.
2) "To ensure that the five races have their own identities, we’ve created a cultural palette that reflects the character of the species. This means a red color for a human may not look the same as a red color for a norn or charr."
I'm confused. Does this mean races get different colors at the start (turquoise for asura, aquamarine for sylvari, sky blue for humans, etc), or does it mean the same color looks differently depending on which race is wearing it?
And if it's the former (which I'm inclined to believe), wouldn't you just get all five racial palettes by rolling up a character of each race, negating the whole point?
Quote:
Wow this sounds awesome! I love that we don't have to mix dyes anymore, and unlocking them once is great, so we don't have to buy 10 different colors of the dye every time we get a new armor. At least, that's what it sounds like - once you unlock the dye color you can get it for free. I hope so anyway.
That is what it says. Dye are unlockables, not physical items. Which is awesome.|||Quote:
Sounds like they want to make you pay for the really cool ones via the in-game store for real-world cash to me (in reference to "unlocking" outside the game). I'm going to sit on the sidelines when they release this till I find out more about all the microtransactions I THINK I see coming with GW2.
I'm no insider so this is just an opinion based on my experiences with Anet. I would tend to believe that, if colors are offered for purchase, it would be like the skill packs in GWO - you can unlock them individually by playing, or purchase them all at once.|||Quote:
Sounds like they want to make you pay for the really cool ones via the in-game store for real-world cash to me (in reference to "unlocking" outside the game).
Seems likely, yes. At least for later made "special" colors.
OTOH, if all they sell are colors, who cares? Colors and costumes don't affect gameplay, they just make it more pretty.
There has to be a drawback to a subscription-free game. If it's no more than buyable pretties, I couldn't care less.
--
Interesting article nonetheless.
Addon support
While gw1 was great for the ability to move and scale almost every aspect of the UI, it was missing a very important feature - third party addons. I'm sure everyone remembers the discovery of Texmod and how explosively it took off, with .tpf files popping up left and right.
Wouldn't it be great if support for such things was built right into the game? Here's three examples of UI's I've thrown together with the use of addons:
Spoiler
Aside from changing many things aesthetically, there are also many addons available for people who like information overload, like myself.
(Admittedly I've never even used these two parts of Recount, but they're neat nonetheless):
Quite an improvement from the Master of Damage, and the Damage Log on gw1.
From what I"ve seen, the UI of gw2 looks great as it is, but that's no reason not to include an API for people to create niche UI elements which may not be included in the default. With all the great information being released lately like the mobile apps and not-sucky pve, it would be a shame to overlook such an important part of an MMO.|||The only way I'd say ok is if they had a method in place to prevent people making addons that function as hacks.
Otherwise, I'm not sure if I like the idea or not. I'd have to think about it.|||Addons like the Recount one are perfectly fine for obvious reasons.
The problem is that it creates an unprecedent. If you allow UI-modification addons, then you also will be allowing something like animation changing that can inbalance the competitive aspect.
This already happened in GW1 with texmod. Some guilds changed the skill animations to allow way easier reaction of when and what skills to interrupt by changing the animation to a big textbox that said INTERRUPT ME!!
The only way for this to work is if Anet has some sort of Approval system, where they look through the created addons and only allow those approved by them to get incorporated into the game, but that required moderators, and moderators don't work for free.
Information for after-battle reviewing, good. Awesome even.
Possibility of umbalanced behaviour due to addon, bad. Terribly bad even.|||Hacks? An addon "app store"? ..That's not how this stuff works... lol..
First of all, addons [and this is all in relation to Blizz of course] have to conform to the policy, which states:
Quote:
AddOns must be free of charge.
AddOn code must be completely visible.
AddOns must not negatively impact World of Warcraft realms or other players.
AddOns may not include advertisements.
AddOns may not solicit donations.
AddOns must not contain offensive or objectionable material.
AddOns must abide by World of Warcraft ToU and EULA.
Blizzard Entertainment has the right to disable AddOn functionality as it sees fit.
The last one has already happened a few times, when an addon was created which allowed people to draw diagrams right into the game world for anyone in the party. So they could show where void zones would be, and what their exact radius is, whether you were in range of totems, showed you which way to run, etc etc. Blizzard saw this addon and felt that this went too far, and broke its functionality in the next patch. Addons such as Deadly Boss Mods were allowed to continue, as they merely say that a boss is casting a given ability soon, not where you should go to avoid it.
When you write an addon you use the Lua programming language, and the WoW API. Therefore it's impossible to create an addon which is a "hack" or in Nemeon's example, replaces textures, as these would go outside of both the policy and the boundaries/capabilities of the API.
Further reading:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Addon
http://www.wowwiki.com/Getting_start...writing_addons
http://www.wowwiki.com/World_of_Warcraft_API
http://www.wowwiki.com/Lua_functions
http://www.wowwiki.com/XML_elements|||I don't play WoW, never have, and never will, so I didn't know about all these restrictions. If they have all those restrictions, then fine. Here is the big question though, if you develop something, is there a waiting period before you can use it while Blizzard looks it over? Or can you use it immediately until Blizzard spots it and removes it (in the case of a "hack"). The ONLY way I would want user-made add-ons to be allowed is if there was a waiting period, where your add-on was inspected to make sure no illegalities were made, BEFORE the add-on is available for use.
I'd hate to see something happen where a guild gets together and makes an add-on that would help give them a huge advantage over the other guilds in GvG, shoot up the ladder because of it, and then after the fact, have Anet remove it due to being illegal. Sure, Anet could probably send them the whole way back down the ladder, but would it reset the W-L record of every guild that lost to them? It's little things like that that need to be considered.
As long as Anet would be proactive in scanning over the add-ons before they become available for use, then I see no problems with add-ons. Any other way is unacceptable, IMO.
And this is coming from someone with a background in FPS where all kinds of hacks run rampant, pretty much ruining any fun you could have.|||I played warhammer online, which allowed addons, it was used mainly for making the issues of the game less of an issue. However, it gave those using addons a significant advantage over those who did not to the point where it was basically necessary to use to play the game. I do not want to feel like I must use addons to play gw2, as the functionality can vary greatly from one to another and they can become something you watch constantly, which bugs me.
I know, gw2 will not be as buggy or grindy a game as warhammer online so less addons will be used to help with that. I know why you want addons, and I can respect why you do... however there will be some that would ruin the game for me, of this I can be almost absolutely sure... so I don't like the idea, sorry.|||I agree completely with your reasoning shawn, you would know that from what I've previously argued for adding to gw2.
I would though still like things like these to just be in the game.|||This is awesomest part of WoW (that's not saying much coming from me, but their addon system really is great). Hell yes I'd want it in GW2.|||Quote:
if you develop something, is there a waiting period before you can use it while Blizzard looks it over? Or can you use it immediately until Blizzard spots it and removes it (in the case of a "hack"). The ONLY way I would want user-made add-ons to be allowed is if there was a waiting period, where your add-on was inspected to make sure no illegalities were made, BEFORE the add-on is available for use.
I'd hate to see something happen where a guild gets together and makes an add-on that would help give them a huge advantage over the other guilds in GvG, shoot up the ladder because of it, and then after the fact, have Anet remove it due to being illegal. Sure, Anet could probably send them the whole way back down the ladder, but would it reset the W-L record of every guild that lost to them? It's little things like that that need to be considered.
As long as Anet would be proactive in scanning over the add-ons before they become available for use, then I see no problems with add-ons. Any other way is unacceptable, IMO.
And this is coming from someone with a background in FPS where all kinds of hacks run rampant, pretty much ruining any fun you could have.
I think you're really, REALLY, overestimating what an addon can do. This is not like developing a mobile app for Android or iOS, where you have a software developing kit and Apple's ****ing ridiculous review board to get through (but my hatred of the app store is another story entirely) - addons have to work within the constraints of the addon API.
Quote:
API - An application programming interface is an interface implemented by a software program that enables it to interact with other software. It facilitates interaction between different software programs similar to the way the user interface facilitates interaction between humans and computers.
An API is implemented by applications, libraries, and operating systems to determine their vocabularies and calling conventions, and is used to access their services. It may include specifications for routines, data structures, object classes, and protocols used to communicate between the consumer and the implementer of the API.
So no - there is no "addon review panel." No one submits their addons to Blizzard to go over, because there's no need. Blizzard has already created the limitations within the API. Your addon can talk to the API, which then talks to the game. So you can say "hey, when I talk to this merchant, tell the game to auto-sell all the grey items in my inventory" and the API says "ok, I see here that's an acceptable request, can do."
But obviously there'd be no option for "hey, I'm going to sit here and pretend to be a mini-map modification but really I'm going to run in the background and keylog your username and password" because the API would not recognize such commands, and in turn, the game wouldn't be able to act on them.
Further, addons are all .xml and .lua files - similar to a text file or html file, not executable files - so you'd be unable to run a malicious program that way, either.
I've played my fair share of FPS games as well - don't get addons confused with mods and hacks. Similar to the above Apple app store example, you can download a software developer's kit for game modifications straight off Steam for free. (On the Tools tab it's the "Source SDK"). That involves a whole hell of a lot more work then simple UI addon scripts, however. A friend and I tried once.. then we realized we'd have to create models, textures, maps, sounds, and a bunch of other crap that was way over our heads. That idea didn't last much longer than a week.
So anyway, I don't really think I can explain it any better, nor do I want to, really. 95% of the forum probably had their eyes glaze over before the second paragraph anyway.|||Stats are fun. I like stats.
In fact, I'd like to go beyond personal stats and see, for example, what percentage of players have a warrior as their main, or what the top 10 skillbars for PvP have been over the last week.
A friend of mine who plays WoW was babbling about his character a couple days ago, and mentioned that he has a macro that automatically activates a random minipet when he moves if one isn't already out. Convenient little macros like that in GW would make my day.
Wouldn't it be great if support for such things was built right into the game? Here's three examples of UI's I've thrown together with the use of addons:
Spoiler
Aside from changing many things aesthetically, there are also many addons available for people who like information overload, like myself.
(Admittedly I've never even used these two parts of Recount, but they're neat nonetheless):
Quite an improvement from the Master of Damage, and the Damage Log on gw1.
From what I"ve seen, the UI of gw2 looks great as it is, but that's no reason not to include an API for people to create niche UI elements which may not be included in the default. With all the great information being released lately like the mobile apps and not-sucky pve, it would be a shame to overlook such an important part of an MMO.|||The only way I'd say ok is if they had a method in place to prevent people making addons that function as hacks.
Otherwise, I'm not sure if I like the idea or not. I'd have to think about it.|||Addons like the Recount one are perfectly fine for obvious reasons.
The problem is that it creates an unprecedent. If you allow UI-modification addons, then you also will be allowing something like animation changing that can inbalance the competitive aspect.
This already happened in GW1 with texmod. Some guilds changed the skill animations to allow way easier reaction of when and what skills to interrupt by changing the animation to a big textbox that said INTERRUPT ME!!
The only way for this to work is if Anet has some sort of Approval system, where they look through the created addons and only allow those approved by them to get incorporated into the game, but that required moderators, and moderators don't work for free.
Information for after-battle reviewing, good. Awesome even.
Possibility of umbalanced behaviour due to addon, bad. Terribly bad even.|||Hacks? An addon "app store"? ..That's not how this stuff works... lol..
First of all, addons [and this is all in relation to Blizz of course] have to conform to the policy, which states:
Quote:
AddOns must be free of charge.
AddOn code must be completely visible.
AddOns must not negatively impact World of Warcraft realms or other players.
AddOns may not include advertisements.
AddOns may not solicit donations.
AddOns must not contain offensive or objectionable material.
AddOns must abide by World of Warcraft ToU and EULA.
Blizzard Entertainment has the right to disable AddOn functionality as it sees fit.
The last one has already happened a few times, when an addon was created which allowed people to draw diagrams right into the game world for anyone in the party. So they could show where void zones would be, and what their exact radius is, whether you were in range of totems, showed you which way to run, etc etc. Blizzard saw this addon and felt that this went too far, and broke its functionality in the next patch. Addons such as Deadly Boss Mods were allowed to continue, as they merely say that a boss is casting a given ability soon, not where you should go to avoid it.
When you write an addon you use the Lua programming language, and the WoW API. Therefore it's impossible to create an addon which is a "hack" or in Nemeon's example, replaces textures, as these would go outside of both the policy and the boundaries/capabilities of the API.
Further reading:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Addon
http://www.wowwiki.com/Getting_start...writing_addons
http://www.wowwiki.com/World_of_Warcraft_API
http://www.wowwiki.com/Lua_functions
http://www.wowwiki.com/XML_elements|||I don't play WoW, never have, and never will, so I didn't know about all these restrictions. If they have all those restrictions, then fine. Here is the big question though, if you develop something, is there a waiting period before you can use it while Blizzard looks it over? Or can you use it immediately until Blizzard spots it and removes it (in the case of a "hack"). The ONLY way I would want user-made add-ons to be allowed is if there was a waiting period, where your add-on was inspected to make sure no illegalities were made, BEFORE the add-on is available for use.
I'd hate to see something happen where a guild gets together and makes an add-on that would help give them a huge advantage over the other guilds in GvG, shoot up the ladder because of it, and then after the fact, have Anet remove it due to being illegal. Sure, Anet could probably send them the whole way back down the ladder, but would it reset the W-L record of every guild that lost to them? It's little things like that that need to be considered.
As long as Anet would be proactive in scanning over the add-ons before they become available for use, then I see no problems with add-ons. Any other way is unacceptable, IMO.
And this is coming from someone with a background in FPS where all kinds of hacks run rampant, pretty much ruining any fun you could have.|||I played warhammer online, which allowed addons, it was used mainly for making the issues of the game less of an issue. However, it gave those using addons a significant advantage over those who did not to the point where it was basically necessary to use to play the game. I do not want to feel like I must use addons to play gw2, as the functionality can vary greatly from one to another and they can become something you watch constantly, which bugs me.
I know, gw2 will not be as buggy or grindy a game as warhammer online so less addons will be used to help with that. I know why you want addons, and I can respect why you do... however there will be some that would ruin the game for me, of this I can be almost absolutely sure... so I don't like the idea, sorry.|||I agree completely with your reasoning shawn, you would know that from what I've previously argued for adding to gw2.
I would though still like things like these to just be in the game.|||This is awesomest part of WoW (that's not saying much coming from me, but their addon system really is great). Hell yes I'd want it in GW2.|||Quote:
if you develop something, is there a waiting period before you can use it while Blizzard looks it over? Or can you use it immediately until Blizzard spots it and removes it (in the case of a "hack"). The ONLY way I would want user-made add-ons to be allowed is if there was a waiting period, where your add-on was inspected to make sure no illegalities were made, BEFORE the add-on is available for use.
I'd hate to see something happen where a guild gets together and makes an add-on that would help give them a huge advantage over the other guilds in GvG, shoot up the ladder because of it, and then after the fact, have Anet remove it due to being illegal. Sure, Anet could probably send them the whole way back down the ladder, but would it reset the W-L record of every guild that lost to them? It's little things like that that need to be considered.
As long as Anet would be proactive in scanning over the add-ons before they become available for use, then I see no problems with add-ons. Any other way is unacceptable, IMO.
And this is coming from someone with a background in FPS where all kinds of hacks run rampant, pretty much ruining any fun you could have.
I think you're really, REALLY, overestimating what an addon can do. This is not like developing a mobile app for Android or iOS, where you have a software developing kit and Apple's ****ing ridiculous review board to get through (but my hatred of the app store is another story entirely) - addons have to work within the constraints of the addon API.
Quote:
API - An application programming interface is an interface implemented by a software program that enables it to interact with other software. It facilitates interaction between different software programs similar to the way the user interface facilitates interaction between humans and computers.
An API is implemented by applications, libraries, and operating systems to determine their vocabularies and calling conventions, and is used to access their services. It may include specifications for routines, data structures, object classes, and protocols used to communicate between the consumer and the implementer of the API.
So no - there is no "addon review panel." No one submits their addons to Blizzard to go over, because there's no need. Blizzard has already created the limitations within the API. Your addon can talk to the API, which then talks to the game. So you can say "hey, when I talk to this merchant, tell the game to auto-sell all the grey items in my inventory" and the API says "ok, I see here that's an acceptable request, can do."
But obviously there'd be no option for "hey, I'm going to sit here and pretend to be a mini-map modification but really I'm going to run in the background and keylog your username and password" because the API would not recognize such commands, and in turn, the game wouldn't be able to act on them.
Further, addons are all .xml and .lua files - similar to a text file or html file, not executable files - so you'd be unable to run a malicious program that way, either.
I've played my fair share of FPS games as well - don't get addons confused with mods and hacks. Similar to the above Apple app store example, you can download a software developer's kit for game modifications straight off Steam for free. (On the Tools tab it's the "Source SDK"). That involves a whole hell of a lot more work then simple UI addon scripts, however. A friend and I tried once.. then we realized we'd have to create models, textures, maps, sounds, and a bunch of other crap that was way over our heads. That idea didn't last much longer than a week.
So anyway, I don't really think I can explain it any better, nor do I want to, really. 95% of the forum probably had their eyes glaze over before the second paragraph anyway.|||Stats are fun. I like stats.
In fact, I'd like to go beyond personal stats and see, for example, what percentage of players have a warrior as their main, or what the top 10 skillbars for PvP have been over the last week.
A friend of mine who plays WoW was babbling about his character a couple days ago, and mentioned that he has a macro that automatically activates a random minipet when he moves if one isn't already out. Convenient little macros like that in GW would make my day.
GW2 Feedback - Weapons trail effects
I think they are too much and detract from the overall realism/immersion of combat. Maybe that's just the style ANET is going for, but I'd prefer something more subtle, where you can actually see more of the weapons swinging through the air/combat animations rather then it all being engulfed in the brilliant clouds of smoke once the combat ensues.
I'm not asking for it to look like Oblivion or Age of Conan(I wish), I understand that GW2 tempo is very different, but still maybe less=more? Dark Age of Camelot had really simple trail effects but somehow they worked, they weren't too much that they distracted you but enough to accentuate the attacks.|||Uhm, what effects do you exactly have in mind?
Can you perhaps post a picture?|||I think he's talking about the colour effects when you use weapon attack skills, such as a sword glowing red/orang'ish when using a certain skill.
Now I can't say anything about it in gw2 yet, other than I don't care. But in the original game these effects were actually important in relaying information to the players, and thus couldn't be removed.
It might end up being somewhat similar.|||Kedde, that is exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm not asking for it to look like Oblivion or Age of Conan(I wish), I understand that GW2 tempo is very different, but still maybe less=more? Dark Age of Camelot had really simple trail effects but somehow they worked, they weren't too much that they distracted you but enough to accentuate the attacks.|||Uhm, what effects do you exactly have in mind?
Can you perhaps post a picture?|||I think he's talking about the colour effects when you use weapon attack skills, such as a sword glowing red/orang'ish when using a certain skill.
Now I can't say anything about it in gw2 yet, other than I don't care. But in the original game these effects were actually important in relaying information to the players, and thus couldn't be removed.
It might end up being somewhat similar.|||Kedde, that is exactly what I'm talking about.
Opinion on Glowing effect around targeted characters
I thought the gameplay videos are amazing !
However,
I thought the Glowing effect around targeted characters looks cheap. I personally think either reducing the glow a bit or change it into something else would make it better.
Ofc I don't expect everyone to agree so I made a poll. What do you think ?|||I'm okay with it. The way they're going (being persistent and all) something like that is going to help identify who's who very quickly and easily.|||It's more expensive than making the model lighter. Whether or not you like it, it's not cheap.
I personally like it.|||I'm not sure what effect you're talking about. You mean the AoE target circle or the 'glow' around characters being healed (the blue colour with floating ankhs)?
Spoiler
[img]http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/21/633681182960702658-Grammar****.jpg[/img]|||I like this much better than what we had in GW. There were times I couldn't see what enemy was being hovered over (especially if there were multiple enemies clumped together) since, all the enemy did was get a bit brighter. It was especially true on brighter maps.
At least now there will be no question as to what is being targeted. I suspect it may get toned down a bit by the time of release though.
Quote:
[img]http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/21/633681182960702658-Grammar****.jpg[/img]
so...what is the '****' supposed to be? I think it's screwing up your link, and the few four letter words I did try weren't right.|||Just saw the vid. Kinda cheap, but not enough to be detrimental.
**** = n.azi, goddamn censure.|||I'm okay with it. It's not great, but I can't think of anything better for it either.|||I'm alright with it, it does make your target stand out a bit more than in GW1, but its not a major thing for me.
Give people the option to have it as it is, tone it down a bit, or use the classic brighter enemy kinda function and all should be well.
I think its one of those things where it will look like an eye sore since we have just seen it, but we will get used to it in no time upon release.
- Tsukasa|||Rather have this than Seizure Bisons!|||The real advantage seems to be that it keeps your eye on the action, rather than on the radar. It also makes it easier when you have to target friendlies (green aura) for buffs or heals, given that they are no longer members of your party with handy little buttons to click on in the party window.
Still, something a bit more subtle might be better. It does add to all the visual clutter, with all the new flashy skill animations and such going on.
But, as others have said, it's probably something we'll get used to once we've played long enough to get comfortable with it and mentally filter what we're looking at. I still remember being visually confused sometimes by GW1 when I first started playing.
However,
I thought the Glowing effect around targeted characters looks cheap. I personally think either reducing the glow a bit or change it into something else would make it better.
Ofc I don't expect everyone to agree so I made a poll. What do you think ?|||I'm okay with it. The way they're going (being persistent and all) something like that is going to help identify who's who very quickly and easily.|||It's more expensive than making the model lighter. Whether or not you like it, it's not cheap.
I personally like it.|||I'm not sure what effect you're talking about. You mean the AoE target circle or the 'glow' around characters being healed (the blue colour with floating ankhs)?
Spoiler
[img]http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/21/633681182960702658-Grammar****.jpg[/img]|||I like this much better than what we had in GW. There were times I couldn't see what enemy was being hovered over (especially if there were multiple enemies clumped together) since, all the enemy did was get a bit brighter. It was especially true on brighter maps.
At least now there will be no question as to what is being targeted. I suspect it may get toned down a bit by the time of release though.
Quote:
[img]http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/21/633681182960702658-Grammar****.jpg[/img]
so...what is the '****' supposed to be? I think it's screwing up your link, and the few four letter words I did try weren't right.|||Just saw the vid. Kinda cheap, but not enough to be detrimental.
**** = n.azi, goddamn censure.|||I'm okay with it. It's not great, but I can't think of anything better for it either.|||I'm alright with it, it does make your target stand out a bit more than in GW1, but its not a major thing for me.
Give people the option to have it as it is, tone it down a bit, or use the classic brighter enemy kinda function and all should be well.
I think its one of those things where it will look like an eye sore since we have just seen it, but we will get used to it in no time upon release.
- Tsukasa|||Rather have this than Seizure Bisons!|||The real advantage seems to be that it keeps your eye on the action, rather than on the radar. It also makes it easier when you have to target friendlies (green aura) for buffs or heals, given that they are no longer members of your party with handy little buttons to click on in the party window.
Still, something a bit more subtle might be better. It does add to all the visual clutter, with all the new flashy skill animations and such going on.
But, as others have said, it's probably something we'll get used to once we've played long enough to get comfortable with it and mentally filter what we're looking at. I still remember being visually confused sometimes by GW1 when I first started playing.
ArenaNet: A Rewarding Experience blog entry
New blog entry.
Two main concerns:
"With the transmutation system, you’ll be able to acquire new items known as Transmutation Stones through our in-game store that allow you to customize your appearance. With transmutation, you take two items of the same type, pick one that is the most visually appealing to you, one that is the most statistically appealing to you, and then you simply combine the two items into what will hopefully become your perfect piece of armor or weaponry."
"Through our in-game store"? I'm desperately hoping that doesn't mean by paying with real life money. A functionality like this should be made available through in-game ways (like gold or whatever), not by being bought.
"As you could probably guess, the more crests you have of the same kind on your armor (up to the set’s maximum number), the better the bonuses you receive."
That's actually a bad thing, IMO. Players will thus be more likely to have always a full crest set, as opposed to mixing many sets; eventually people will find a crest set that works better for any given build, and we will see many players wearing the same set, which would then be sold for a very high price. A system in which diversity is rewarded more would be better, IMO.
I would also like to know what happens when we try to change the upgrades of a given item. We can remove runes from an armor piece on GW1; is it possible to remove crests from an armor piece in GW2 and use said crest at a different armor piece?
That being said, it's a very nice article. The art is rather beautiful, and the ideas stated (such as dungeons having a full set of unique equipment, players being able to choose how they will look like, and etc) are perfect.
Erasculio|||As long it's not something outrageous like $10 for 1 Transmutation stone or 5 transmutation stones.|||resource nodes make me cringe, but I can't really identify why, especially in comparison to 'salvage stuff and hope the right mats pop out of it'
edit- Also, transmutation stones don't really bother me. So basically it's a 'reskin this thing to look like this instead'. Honestly, we'll probably have to get used to several things like that. I assume it's how they're going to balance out the no server costs. As long as it's pretty much cosmetic and doesn't give advantages, people can go buy as many sparkles as they want to staple onto their armor.
double edit- Oh, hey, six armor pieces, apparently? Is that anything new to us?|||I'm not against microtransactions as a whole. However, I do not want to see things like special weapons be added to the store. Stuff like makeover kits, these transmutation kits, and whatever else are fine. I'll probably never use some of these things anyway.
This article really makes me want the game so much more (not like I didn't already want it bad enough).|||Quote:
In the case of gathering materials from things like ore nodes, plants, and the like
Is this old news? Did we already know that there was material gathering? I didnt know anyways... And im not sure what to think about it...|||Quote:
Is this old news? Did we already know that there was material gathering? I didnt know anyways... And im not sure what to think about it...
Yes, they have mentioned it before. They were talking about a kind of phasing whereby a player might exploit a resource node and it disappears but only for that player. His friend will still see that node and also be able to harvest it himself. This falls in with all the other things they're trying to do to make it so you won't be annoyed to see other people because they could steal your kills/loot/nodes.|||I more or less share Erasculio's concerns on this. I'll have to toss it around a bit in my head to see if they sound a bit less bothersome, though.|||Quote:
"Through our in-game store"? I'm desperately hoping that doesn't mean by paying with real life money. A functionality like this should be made available through in-game ways (like gold or whatever), not by being bought.
I wouldn't mind if it was like, $5 for a whole crap load, as in, capable of doing at least 20 different entire sets of armor, but I'm wary of in-game stores after playing a couple F2P MMO's and after the whole TF2 fiasco. It's absurd they say,"We need people to wear what they want," and then make them pay extra for the service. They really should be available in-game though, and maybe just sell extras inthe store or something. Ugh, I hate cash shops. Everything always seems to be radically overpriced, like a Storage pane for $10, or a Polycount Pack for $50.
Note to self: If I ever make a game with a cash shop, for any reason, price things appropriately. Something that's not even anything shouldn't cost 1/4 of the game.|||Quote:
Transmutation Stones through our in-game store
Hopefully, just bad wording for in-game merchants. I will need time to read trough all that stuff later when returning from work.|||Most of the article sounded pretty good, but I guess I'm not the first to get a big "warning" hit off that "transmutation stones through our in-game store" bit.
On the one hand it appears to be entirely cosmetic (which is one of the two categories I approve of for micro-transactions, the other being things you can get in-game anyway) but on the other hand it seems to me that this isn't the sort of thing that they should be talking about when trying to hype the game. I'd feel better if they came out and said it was a slip, that they weren't intending to talk about that sort of thing yet.
Two main concerns:
"With the transmutation system, you’ll be able to acquire new items known as Transmutation Stones through our in-game store that allow you to customize your appearance. With transmutation, you take two items of the same type, pick one that is the most visually appealing to you, one that is the most statistically appealing to you, and then you simply combine the two items into what will hopefully become your perfect piece of armor or weaponry."
"Through our in-game store"? I'm desperately hoping that doesn't mean by paying with real life money. A functionality like this should be made available through in-game ways (like gold or whatever), not by being bought.
"As you could probably guess, the more crests you have of the same kind on your armor (up to the set’s maximum number), the better the bonuses you receive."
That's actually a bad thing, IMO. Players will thus be more likely to have always a full crest set, as opposed to mixing many sets; eventually people will find a crest set that works better for any given build, and we will see many players wearing the same set, which would then be sold for a very high price. A system in which diversity is rewarded more would be better, IMO.
I would also like to know what happens when we try to change the upgrades of a given item. We can remove runes from an armor piece on GW1; is it possible to remove crests from an armor piece in GW2 and use said crest at a different armor piece?
That being said, it's a very nice article. The art is rather beautiful, and the ideas stated (such as dungeons having a full set of unique equipment, players being able to choose how they will look like, and etc) are perfect.
Erasculio|||As long it's not something outrageous like $10 for 1 Transmutation stone or 5 transmutation stones.|||resource nodes make me cringe, but I can't really identify why, especially in comparison to 'salvage stuff and hope the right mats pop out of it'
edit- Also, transmutation stones don't really bother me. So basically it's a 'reskin this thing to look like this instead'. Honestly, we'll probably have to get used to several things like that. I assume it's how they're going to balance out the no server costs. As long as it's pretty much cosmetic and doesn't give advantages, people can go buy as many sparkles as they want to staple onto their armor.
double edit- Oh, hey, six armor pieces, apparently? Is that anything new to us?|||I'm not against microtransactions as a whole. However, I do not want to see things like special weapons be added to the store. Stuff like makeover kits, these transmutation kits, and whatever else are fine. I'll probably never use some of these things anyway.
This article really makes me want the game so much more (not like I didn't already want it bad enough).|||Quote:
In the case of gathering materials from things like ore nodes, plants, and the like
Is this old news? Did we already know that there was material gathering? I didnt know anyways... And im not sure what to think about it...|||Quote:
Is this old news? Did we already know that there was material gathering? I didnt know anyways... And im not sure what to think about it...
Yes, they have mentioned it before. They were talking about a kind of phasing whereby a player might exploit a resource node and it disappears but only for that player. His friend will still see that node and also be able to harvest it himself. This falls in with all the other things they're trying to do to make it so you won't be annoyed to see other people because they could steal your kills/loot/nodes.|||I more or less share Erasculio's concerns on this. I'll have to toss it around a bit in my head to see if they sound a bit less bothersome, though.|||Quote:
"Through our in-game store"? I'm desperately hoping that doesn't mean by paying with real life money. A functionality like this should be made available through in-game ways (like gold or whatever), not by being bought.
I wouldn't mind if it was like, $5 for a whole crap load, as in, capable of doing at least 20 different entire sets of armor, but I'm wary of in-game stores after playing a couple F2P MMO's and after the whole TF2 fiasco. It's absurd they say,"We need people to wear what they want," and then make them pay extra for the service. They really should be available in-game though, and maybe just sell extras inthe store or something. Ugh, I hate cash shops. Everything always seems to be radically overpriced, like a Storage pane for $10, or a Polycount Pack for $50.
Note to self: If I ever make a game with a cash shop, for any reason, price things appropriately. Something that's not even anything shouldn't cost 1/4 of the game.|||Quote:
Transmutation Stones through our in-game store
Hopefully, just bad wording for in-game merchants. I will need time to read trough all that stuff later when returning from work.|||Most of the article sounded pretty good, but I guess I'm not the first to get a big "warning" hit off that "transmutation stones through our in-game store" bit.
On the one hand it appears to be entirely cosmetic (which is one of the two categories I approve of for micro-transactions, the other being things you can get in-game anyway) but on the other hand it seems to me that this isn't the sort of thing that they should be talking about when trying to hype the game. I'd feel better if they came out and said it was a slip, that they weren't intending to talk about that sort of thing yet.
End game content
I don't think end game content is that important. Or, in other words, I don't think end game content is the most important part of the game.
A very common myth in many MMORPGs is the idea that the end game content is the only thing that matters. It creates a somewhat paradoxical situation in which the entire point of everything between level 1 and the maximum level is to grind in order to finally reach the end game, when the player would finally play the "real game", which more often than not consists on doing raids in order to very slowly grind gear. Everything until end game is considered just as mindless grind, just a wait until the real thing (while ironically it takes as long to reach the level cap as people stay playing in the end game).
One example may be seen at the Aion forums, in a topic in which a new player asked which class would be more suited to him. The answer he was given was, "Don't worry about how your class plays in the beginning of the game, worry only about the role each class has at the end game content when playing in groups". I felt really bad for that player, since he will spend a significant part of his playing time (if not most of his playing time) soloing monsters with a very different gameplay than what he was told to focus on.
In GW2, we know ArenaNet is trying to fill the world with events, so players have a lot to do. However, that leaves us with two problems:
1) A significant part of players will do their best to skip most of that content. Since in other MMORPGs people think the only thing that matters is the end game, it's only logical that players will try to move as fast as possible from level 1 to level 80 in order to reach the "real" game. If ArenaNet added to each starting city one enemy that could be killed over and over giving enough experience to, after a week of non stopping grind, make a player go from level 1 to 80, I'm sure we would have one week after release a small army of players with level 80 characters who had never left the starting areas complaining how the game lacks end game content.
2) The more effort ArenaNet puts in the middle of the game, the less content the end game will have. If we have a lot of content between levels 1 to 79, there won't be as many resources as possible to invest in content for level 80.
IMO, the end game doesn't matter that much. When reading a book with 600 pages, what is more important - for the last 50 pages to be really good, or for the 550 pages before the end to be really interesting? Same thing with the game - if we are going to spend so much time before reaching the level cap, it better be interesting as well.
In fact, it would not bother me if GW2 had very little end game content. Those usually are linked to a lot of grind - see the gear grind that players of other MMORPGs call "raids", the reputation points farming in GW:EN, the Hall of Monuments, etc. Content designed to keeping players playing every day for the rest of their lives is not necessary on a game like GW2, which does not rely on a monthly fee or on the income from consumable items sold for real life money. Just like single player RPGs (such as Mass Effect, Dragon Age and etc) reach an end, and don't try to make people continue to play them over and over and over, so could GW2 have an end instead of placing grind over grind in the path of level 80 characters.
Erasculio|||I say we scrap the idea of endgame content, and instead go with what GW1 offered:
1) Hard mode
The whole game offers an increased challenge for replay value. Basically, difficulty isn't set by area, it's set by players demanding a challenge.
2) Elite areas
Elite areas can be anywhere, but offer a challenge regardless of how developed your character is. In GW2 terms, those would be challenging areas like 5-man dungeons that require a good team, and would adjust to player level to always offer a challenge.
3) The game is the endgame
Forget the idea of endgame starting at level 80. Endgame in GW1 starts as early as mainland, right outside the tutorial area. All areas beyond offer a decent challenge (ok, maybe not so much in nm, but at least it's balanced for lvl 20). You can move back & forth in the game without ever really feeling that it gets too easy or too hard. The difficulty level is flat, or at least independent of your character level etc.|||From what I've seen, the devs agree with you- they try to make non-max level content just as exciting as max ("end game") content. Perfect example is the demo- we have the earth elemental at level one, the Shadow Behemoth at level 15, and the Shatterer at level 50. All epic-feeling boss fights, at nowhere near max level.
I personally disagree- I think that max level content is very important, but as a direct result of having a leveling system in the first place. Regardless of whether you run through the low level content or stop and smell the Red Iris Flowers, for players like me who invested thousands of hours into the first game, a huge percentage of our characters' lifespan will be spent at max level.
Because of this, there's the problem that you might have accidentally passed by some non-max content, and once you've been max level for a while you become bored, because 1) you've done all the max content already, and 2) any non-max content would be trivially easy at your level. There might be this really cool level 35 dungeon, but if you got from level 30 to 40 by doing other stuff, you have no reason to go there anymore. Or to use a GW2 example, a level 80 character has no business fighting the level 15 Shadow Behemoth.
GW1 avoids this problem by making most of the game max content, and GW2 seems like it will partially avoid it by scaling down your level for events outside your level range. No details yet on exactly how that will work, though.
There's also the Hard Mode solution, which turns the entire game into max-level content, but I don't think a HM option would be feasible for persistent areas. (I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented it for dungeons, however.)|||While I never had time to do them that often, I thought things like UW/FOW/DOA/Urgoz were a lot of fun when I did play them. But I didn't think resources were spent on them out of proportion to the rest of the game. I imagine until we get more info, that Anet will balance end game content vs. the rest of the game similarly in GW2, and that's fine with me.
Quote:
Because of this, there's the problem that you might have accidentally passed by some non-max content, and once you've been max level for a while you become bored, because 1) you've done all the max content already, and 2) any non-max content would be trivially easy at your level. There might be this really cool level 35 dungeon, but if you got from level 30 to 40 by doing other stuff, you have no reason to go there anymore. Or to use a GW2 example, a level 80 character has no business fighting the level 15 Shadow Behemoth.
I believe that your character's power will be scaled to the area you are in, so if you are fighting a lvl 15 Shadow Behemoth as a lvl 80 character, your effective lvl will be about 18 or so.|||Personally, I usually prefer non-endgame. I like acquiring skills/power/equipment depending on the game. Once I've gotten all the skills, for example, the game just becomes repetitive. You're not doing anything that's very different than you did for the previous endgame content. Games that require "strategy" don't really require much, so I get the bulk of my enjoyment in seeing my character progress and trying out something that I didn't have access to before.|||Quote:
IMO, the end game doesn't matter that much. When reading a book with 600 pages, what is more important - for the last 50 pages to be really good, or for the 550 pages before the end to be really interesting? Same thing with the game - if we are going to spend so much time before reaching the level cap, it better be interesting as well.
That's a terrible analogy. A story is built fundamentally different from a game. This is very off topic though, so just PM me if you want to discuss that.
ANet seems to be focusing on providing an equal amount of content on all levels and to provide ways to allow players to play all content with their level scaled down when appropriate. This is a roundabout way, as just having no levels, or having levels only affect the character very lightly, would be much simpler than trying to constantly rebalance everything around players coming back etc. but I'm guessing we're too far along in the dev cycle to see that change (*gruntle*).|||Quote:
I believe that your character's power will be scaled to the area you are in, so if you are fighting a lvl 15 Shadow Behemoth as a lvl 80 character, your effective lvl will be about 18 or so.
Yes, I mentioned that in the following paragraph. Still no details on this feature, though.
To add to my earlier post, I was bouncing around ideas in my head for various ways to get around the level/content problem.
Hard Mode. GW1 does this to good effect, but as I already mentioned it wouldn't work in a persistent MMO. Diablo is probably the most famous game to use this, with two extra difficulties, effectively getting people to play the same game three times. Also a bit of a copout, since you're just replaying old content.
Make the level cap so high (or require so much exp) that the players are unlikely to ever reach max level. Diablo 2 v1.10+ does this, with level 98-99 requiring literally thousands of Baal runs. Of course, this greatly encourages mindless grinding for the endgame, but since D2 endgame is already all about item farming, it's forgivable. In other games it also makes the problem worse in that you have that many more levels to spread your content across.
Go to the other extreme and have no levels. Basically GW1, except everyone starts at level 20. This has the side effect of disallowing any character growth and eliminating one of the core elements of being an RPG.
Force your character to temporarily delevel to suit the area/quest. What GW2 seems to be doing. This has a similar effect to the previous option in that it devalues your character growth- why does it matter how many levels you earn if you're always going to be level 12 when going on a level 12 quest?
Give your character the option to temporarily delevel their character, along with incentives to do so. The only game I've seen this put to good use in was The World Ends With You, which allows you to lower your level in exchange for an improved item drop rate. (Incidentally, you also had four difficulty levels to choose from.)
All this is really just an intellectual exercise, since most of these options wouldn't be suitable for GW2. We'll have to wait and see what ANet plans on doing with the deleveling system. It does sound preferable to the standard MMO system where once you've leveled past an area, it's never a challenge for you again.
And all this is from the perspective of a max-level character. From the perspective of a low-level character, ANet's philosophy is great- they get to partake in epic battles long before they reach max level.|||Quote:
I say we scrap the idea of endgame content, and instead go with what GW1 offered:
1) Hard mode
The whole game offers an increased challenge for replay value. Basically, difficulty isn't set by area, it's set by players demanding a challenge.
2) Elite areas
Elite areas can be anywhere, but offer a challenge regardless of how developed your character is. In GW2 terms, those would be challenging areas like 5-man dungeons that require a good team, and would adjust to player level to always offer a challenge.
3) The game is the endgame
Forget the idea of endgame starting at level 80. Endgame in GW1 starts as early as mainland, right outside the tutorial area. All areas beyond offer a decent challenge (ok, maybe not so much in nm, but at least it's balanced for lvl 20). You can move back & forth in the game without ever really feeling that it gets too easy or too hard. The difficulty level is flat, or at least independent of your character level etc.
yeah This
this is my biggest issue with the giant numbers we see in the trailer
my char does say 23dmg average to anything in the gameworld(varying depending on armor values) i can never just run through even one of the earlier mission's one shotting stuff and then theres HM to increase the challenge everywhere(something we cant do with a persistant world( i guess it could be achieved by debuffing the player instead)
and while some builds have made alot of the content simple anyway
i still enjoy playing through the mission's because there actually created as if they were real levels as opposed to in most MMO's where its heres a Map and then heres a bunch of overbuffed enemies (which have suddenly learned to work as a group as opposed to being easily singled out) fight forward till you get to the boss for some loot
goals other than kill till you get to a room with only an entrance, are what make GW fun( i still remember my first time in vizunah when i didn't know that thier was another team in the mission thinking that we were screwed until they popped up out of nowhere and saved the mission)|||Presumably, with the event system in place, there's always going to be stuff to do, even when you're done levelling, and done going through your personal storyline. Especially since these events appear to have a sort of cascading effect. Hopefully there's a chance that an old area can be re-experienced in a new way if you turn up at the right time/do the right thing.
I'd still like to see dungeons/elite areas - you know, stuff you have to think about before starting, and that makes you feel super proud when you finally figure out how to beat it. Hopefully these sorts of things will require teamwork - there's just no point for me if I can't share the experience of stomping some superboss.
Of course, for me, PvP is also endgame content. I hope it will be suitably impressive, as nothing else about this game has impressed me or even genuinely interested me yet.|||Quote:
3) The game is the endgame
Forget the idea of endgame starting at level 80. Endgame in GW1 starts as early as mainland, right outside the tutorial area. All areas beyond offer a decent challenge (ok, maybe not so much in nm, but at least it's balanced for lvl 20). You can move back & forth in the game without ever really feeling that it gets too easy or too hard. The difficulty level is flat, or at least independent of your character level etc.
This.
I think endgame is really important. Otherwise, once you hit max level, what are you supposed to do?
But, yeah, I agree with Alaris 100%: The game should be designed that everything after the introduction IS the endgame, regardless of your level.
A very common myth in many MMORPGs is the idea that the end game content is the only thing that matters. It creates a somewhat paradoxical situation in which the entire point of everything between level 1 and the maximum level is to grind in order to finally reach the end game, when the player would finally play the "real game", which more often than not consists on doing raids in order to very slowly grind gear. Everything until end game is considered just as mindless grind, just a wait until the real thing (while ironically it takes as long to reach the level cap as people stay playing in the end game).
One example may be seen at the Aion forums, in a topic in which a new player asked which class would be more suited to him. The answer he was given was, "Don't worry about how your class plays in the beginning of the game, worry only about the role each class has at the end game content when playing in groups". I felt really bad for that player, since he will spend a significant part of his playing time (if not most of his playing time) soloing monsters with a very different gameplay than what he was told to focus on.
In GW2, we know ArenaNet is trying to fill the world with events, so players have a lot to do. However, that leaves us with two problems:
1) A significant part of players will do their best to skip most of that content. Since in other MMORPGs people think the only thing that matters is the end game, it's only logical that players will try to move as fast as possible from level 1 to level 80 in order to reach the "real" game. If ArenaNet added to each starting city one enemy that could be killed over and over giving enough experience to, after a week of non stopping grind, make a player go from level 1 to 80, I'm sure we would have one week after release a small army of players with level 80 characters who had never left the starting areas complaining how the game lacks end game content.
2) The more effort ArenaNet puts in the middle of the game, the less content the end game will have. If we have a lot of content between levels 1 to 79, there won't be as many resources as possible to invest in content for level 80.
IMO, the end game doesn't matter that much. When reading a book with 600 pages, what is more important - for the last 50 pages to be really good, or for the 550 pages before the end to be really interesting? Same thing with the game - if we are going to spend so much time before reaching the level cap, it better be interesting as well.
In fact, it would not bother me if GW2 had very little end game content. Those usually are linked to a lot of grind - see the gear grind that players of other MMORPGs call "raids", the reputation points farming in GW:EN, the Hall of Monuments, etc. Content designed to keeping players playing every day for the rest of their lives is not necessary on a game like GW2, which does not rely on a monthly fee or on the income from consumable items sold for real life money. Just like single player RPGs (such as Mass Effect, Dragon Age and etc) reach an end, and don't try to make people continue to play them over and over and over, so could GW2 have an end instead of placing grind over grind in the path of level 80 characters.
Erasculio|||I say we scrap the idea of endgame content, and instead go with what GW1 offered:
1) Hard mode
The whole game offers an increased challenge for replay value. Basically, difficulty isn't set by area, it's set by players demanding a challenge.
2) Elite areas
Elite areas can be anywhere, but offer a challenge regardless of how developed your character is. In GW2 terms, those would be challenging areas like 5-man dungeons that require a good team, and would adjust to player level to always offer a challenge.
3) The game is the endgame
Forget the idea of endgame starting at level 80. Endgame in GW1 starts as early as mainland, right outside the tutorial area. All areas beyond offer a decent challenge (ok, maybe not so much in nm, but at least it's balanced for lvl 20). You can move back & forth in the game without ever really feeling that it gets too easy or too hard. The difficulty level is flat, or at least independent of your character level etc.|||From what I've seen, the devs agree with you- they try to make non-max level content just as exciting as max ("end game") content. Perfect example is the demo- we have the earth elemental at level one, the Shadow Behemoth at level 15, and the Shatterer at level 50. All epic-feeling boss fights, at nowhere near max level.
I personally disagree- I think that max level content is very important, but as a direct result of having a leveling system in the first place. Regardless of whether you run through the low level content or stop and smell the Red Iris Flowers, for players like me who invested thousands of hours into the first game, a huge percentage of our characters' lifespan will be spent at max level.
Because of this, there's the problem that you might have accidentally passed by some non-max content, and once you've been max level for a while you become bored, because 1) you've done all the max content already, and 2) any non-max content would be trivially easy at your level. There might be this really cool level 35 dungeon, but if you got from level 30 to 40 by doing other stuff, you have no reason to go there anymore. Or to use a GW2 example, a level 80 character has no business fighting the level 15 Shadow Behemoth.
GW1 avoids this problem by making most of the game max content, and GW2 seems like it will partially avoid it by scaling down your level for events outside your level range. No details yet on exactly how that will work, though.
There's also the Hard Mode solution, which turns the entire game into max-level content, but I don't think a HM option would be feasible for persistent areas. (I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented it for dungeons, however.)|||While I never had time to do them that often, I thought things like UW/FOW/DOA/Urgoz were a lot of fun when I did play them. But I didn't think resources were spent on them out of proportion to the rest of the game. I imagine until we get more info, that Anet will balance end game content vs. the rest of the game similarly in GW2, and that's fine with me.
Quote:
Because of this, there's the problem that you might have accidentally passed by some non-max content, and once you've been max level for a while you become bored, because 1) you've done all the max content already, and 2) any non-max content would be trivially easy at your level. There might be this really cool level 35 dungeon, but if you got from level 30 to 40 by doing other stuff, you have no reason to go there anymore. Or to use a GW2 example, a level 80 character has no business fighting the level 15 Shadow Behemoth.
I believe that your character's power will be scaled to the area you are in, so if you are fighting a lvl 15 Shadow Behemoth as a lvl 80 character, your effective lvl will be about 18 or so.|||Personally, I usually prefer non-endgame. I like acquiring skills/power/equipment depending on the game. Once I've gotten all the skills, for example, the game just becomes repetitive. You're not doing anything that's very different than you did for the previous endgame content. Games that require "strategy" don't really require much, so I get the bulk of my enjoyment in seeing my character progress and trying out something that I didn't have access to before.|||Quote:
IMO, the end game doesn't matter that much. When reading a book with 600 pages, what is more important - for the last 50 pages to be really good, or for the 550 pages before the end to be really interesting? Same thing with the game - if we are going to spend so much time before reaching the level cap, it better be interesting as well.
That's a terrible analogy. A story is built fundamentally different from a game. This is very off topic though, so just PM me if you want to discuss that.
ANet seems to be focusing on providing an equal amount of content on all levels and to provide ways to allow players to play all content with their level scaled down when appropriate. This is a roundabout way, as just having no levels, or having levels only affect the character very lightly, would be much simpler than trying to constantly rebalance everything around players coming back etc. but I'm guessing we're too far along in the dev cycle to see that change (*gruntle*).|||Quote:
I believe that your character's power will be scaled to the area you are in, so if you are fighting a lvl 15 Shadow Behemoth as a lvl 80 character, your effective lvl will be about 18 or so.
Yes, I mentioned that in the following paragraph. Still no details on this feature, though.
To add to my earlier post, I was bouncing around ideas in my head for various ways to get around the level/content problem.
Hard Mode. GW1 does this to good effect, but as I already mentioned it wouldn't work in a persistent MMO. Diablo is probably the most famous game to use this, with two extra difficulties, effectively getting people to play the same game three times. Also a bit of a copout, since you're just replaying old content.
Make the level cap so high (or require so much exp) that the players are unlikely to ever reach max level. Diablo 2 v1.10+ does this, with level 98-99 requiring literally thousands of Baal runs. Of course, this greatly encourages mindless grinding for the endgame, but since D2 endgame is already all about item farming, it's forgivable. In other games it also makes the problem worse in that you have that many more levels to spread your content across.
Go to the other extreme and have no levels. Basically GW1, except everyone starts at level 20. This has the side effect of disallowing any character growth and eliminating one of the core elements of being an RPG.
Force your character to temporarily delevel to suit the area/quest. What GW2 seems to be doing. This has a similar effect to the previous option in that it devalues your character growth- why does it matter how many levels you earn if you're always going to be level 12 when going on a level 12 quest?
Give your character the option to temporarily delevel their character, along with incentives to do so. The only game I've seen this put to good use in was The World Ends With You, which allows you to lower your level in exchange for an improved item drop rate. (Incidentally, you also had four difficulty levels to choose from.)
All this is really just an intellectual exercise, since most of these options wouldn't be suitable for GW2. We'll have to wait and see what ANet plans on doing with the deleveling system. It does sound preferable to the standard MMO system where once you've leveled past an area, it's never a challenge for you again.
And all this is from the perspective of a max-level character. From the perspective of a low-level character, ANet's philosophy is great- they get to partake in epic battles long before they reach max level.|||Quote:
I say we scrap the idea of endgame content, and instead go with what GW1 offered:
1) Hard mode
The whole game offers an increased challenge for replay value. Basically, difficulty isn't set by area, it's set by players demanding a challenge.
2) Elite areas
Elite areas can be anywhere, but offer a challenge regardless of how developed your character is. In GW2 terms, those would be challenging areas like 5-man dungeons that require a good team, and would adjust to player level to always offer a challenge.
3) The game is the endgame
Forget the idea of endgame starting at level 80. Endgame in GW1 starts as early as mainland, right outside the tutorial area. All areas beyond offer a decent challenge (ok, maybe not so much in nm, but at least it's balanced for lvl 20). You can move back & forth in the game without ever really feeling that it gets too easy or too hard. The difficulty level is flat, or at least independent of your character level etc.
yeah This
this is my biggest issue with the giant numbers we see in the trailer
my char does say 23dmg average to anything in the gameworld(varying depending on armor values) i can never just run through even one of the earlier mission's one shotting stuff and then theres HM to increase the challenge everywhere(something we cant do with a persistant world( i guess it could be achieved by debuffing the player instead)
and while some builds have made alot of the content simple anyway
i still enjoy playing through the mission's because there actually created as if they were real levels as opposed to in most MMO's where its heres a Map and then heres a bunch of overbuffed enemies (which have suddenly learned to work as a group as opposed to being easily singled out) fight forward till you get to the boss for some loot
goals other than kill till you get to a room with only an entrance, are what make GW fun( i still remember my first time in vizunah when i didn't know that thier was another team in the mission thinking that we were screwed until they popped up out of nowhere and saved the mission)|||Presumably, with the event system in place, there's always going to be stuff to do, even when you're done levelling, and done going through your personal storyline. Especially since these events appear to have a sort of cascading effect. Hopefully there's a chance that an old area can be re-experienced in a new way if you turn up at the right time/do the right thing.
I'd still like to see dungeons/elite areas - you know, stuff you have to think about before starting, and that makes you feel super proud when you finally figure out how to beat it. Hopefully these sorts of things will require teamwork - there's just no point for me if I can't share the experience of stomping some superboss.
Of course, for me, PvP is also endgame content. I hope it will be suitably impressive, as nothing else about this game has impressed me or even genuinely interested me yet.|||Quote:
3) The game is the endgame
Forget the idea of endgame starting at level 80. Endgame in GW1 starts as early as mainland, right outside the tutorial area. All areas beyond offer a decent challenge (ok, maybe not so much in nm, but at least it's balanced for lvl 20). You can move back & forth in the game without ever really feeling that it gets too easy or too hard. The difficulty level is flat, or at least independent of your character level etc.
This.
I think endgame is really important. Otherwise, once you hit max level, what are you supposed to do?
But, yeah, I agree with Alaris 100%: The game should be designed that everything after the introduction IS the endgame, regardless of your level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)