1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Druxray View Post
    I started a thread but its not doing well. Im looking forward to guild wars 2 but was curious if there are any set backs to not having a sub fee? I've always been told that sub fees just pay for maintenance and support for the game to allow it to be enjoyed. Does guild wars 2 support lack or is the sub fee theory I have been told true or is it not needed for a game to be successful and the developer still able to make money? Thanks
    Every MMO needs money to keep it updated and for maintenance etc... it's true... but lack of sub fee doesn't mean lack of money. There are three major models to get money for MMORPG.

    Subscription based, Buy to play and "free"to play... none of these are made for charity... all these models were developed to generate income in some way or another. GW2 is Buy to play model. Which is indeed different compared to subscription model but it will also generate tons of money (if there will be enough players) needed for further development. So don't worry. GW2 will be just fine..there will be free updates, patches, expansions etc..

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Druxray View Post
    I started a thread but its not doing well. Im looking forward to guild wars 2 but was curious if there are any set backs to not having a sub fee? I've always been told that sub fees just pay for maintenance and support for the game to allow it to be enjoyed. Does guild wars 2 support lack or is the sub fee theory I have been told true or is it not needed for a game to be successful and the developer still able to make money? Thanks
    You might want to check out this speech one of the co-founders of Arenanet gave a few years ago:

    http://www.guildwars.com/events/trad...7/gcspeech.php

    If you scroll to the bottom to the section called "Don't count on subscriptions", it's a very good read.

    Or, here's a quote for those with arthritic clicking fingers!

    In the early years of the MMO industry, from roughly 1997 to 2001, there were a few big MMOs that had active player populations. By the time we started ArenaNet in the summer of 2000, we knew of at least eighty MMOs that were in development. Based on the success of UO and EQ, publishers were reviewing their portfolios and planning to migrate their existing game franchises to the online world, where they believed they could adopt a subscription model and "make bank". Clearly, it did not work out that way. As more MMOs came into the market, two things changed. First, players now had a choice about which game they would play, and as a result their expectations for polish, content quantity, and service increased substantially. Second, and perhaps more telling for the future of the industry, it became clear that the subscription model forced players to choose a single game, rather than playing many different games.

    Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game.

    Be very aware of the choice you are asking players to make, and the frequency of that choice. In a subscription model you are asking players to make a choice every month, and it is a fairly drastic choice: Stay married, or get divorced? It is certainly the case that if every player decides to stay married every month, you can make more money from each player in the subscription model. But that will rarely be the case, and not something that you should count on. Every month, some percentage of your player base will decide on divorce, and as with marriage in the real word, once you are divorced you rarely get married to the same person again. If you go the subscription route, you'll need to have the confidence that your marriage rate will exceed your divorce rate.

    With Guild Wars we ask players to make a choice only one time, and that choice is whether to buy the game, or not to buy the game. While we don't enjoy a recurring revenue stream each month, we do benefit from the fact that most Guild Wars players come back to the game when we release new content, so we are less concerned about players putting the game down for a few months. Players don't have to decide whether to stay married or get divorced, they just have to decide whether they want to play today or not. Beyond the benefit of a lower pain threshold to get into the game, this is the core strength of the Guild Wars business model, and one of the reasons it continues to thrive when many other subscription-based MMOs are struggling.

    Innovate with your game play, and innovate with your business model! The two go hand in hand, and are mutually dependent on each other. Decide on your business model first, and then build your game around it. Guild Wars can be successful with its business model because we decided that we would not charge a subscription fee before we wrote the first line of code, and every design and technology decision we made served that purpose. We could never turn Guild Wars into a subscription-based game, just as Turbine could not suddenly decide to eliminate the subscription model for Lord of the Rings Online. If you decide to require players to subscribe to your game, be prepared to build a game that thoroughly justifies it.
    As others have already said, Arenanet make more than enough money from micro-transactions (ones that do not give players an advantage over others) to keep their games running.
    Last edited by Mothhive; 2011-04-27 at 11:20 PM.

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    The game without tanks cannot exist. Either DPS are reduced to 1-2 abilities (like in Diablo), or boss is big dummy on the pole (like in most singleplayer games). In proper MMO you need the tank.
    After reading some of your replies including this one I can see you have an extremely simple-minded approach to eveything.

  4. #184
    I was just watching a video that someone posted here and it sparked something that I really hadn't noticed before. It's not something particularly pertaining to said video, but more-so to the overall game play of what GW2 is lining up to be. And that something seems to be what the WoW team had said a while ago, "Bring the player, not the class."

    With all the recent changes to the classes in Cata; some extreme some not so extreme, Blizzard seems to be searching for a varying degree of homogenization. Whereas the Arenanet team has designed GW2 around no tanks, everyone tanks. No specific healers, everyone heals. No specific DPS, everyone DPS. Has Arenanet found the answer, did they steal an idea or simply improve upon an unattained concept up till this point, do you think it'll work? /discuss

    This is not an attempt to degrade GW2 or the people at Arenanet, I'm impatiently bounding in my seat for any new news from them regarding the game.

    /end ramble
    Last edited by Yzak; 2011-04-28 at 03:18 AM.

  5. #185
    Scarab Lord Blznsmri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Yzak View Post
    I was just watching a video that someone posted here and it sparked something that I really hadn't noticed before. It's not something particularly pertaining to said video, but more-so to the overall game play of what GW2 is lining up to be. And that something seems to be what the WoW team had said a while ago, "Bring the player, not the class."

    With all the recent changes to the classes in Cata; some extreme some not so extreme, Blizzard seems to be searching for a varying degree of homogenization. Whereas the Arenanet team has designed GW2 around no tanks, everyone tanks. No specific healers, everyone heals. No specific DPS, everyone DPS. Has Arenanet found the answer, did they steal an idea or simply improve upon an unattained concept up till this point, do you think it'll work? /discuss

    This is not an attempt to degrade GW2 or the people at Arenanet, I'm impatiently bounding in my seat for any new news from them regarding the game.

    /end ramble
    Guild Wars 2 has been in development since before Wrath was released. They're not copying anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by SW:TOR
    Jokerseven - Kinetic Combat Shadow - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Ce'lia - Combat Sentinel - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Sentinel PVE Basics for the two Specs that matter

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Blznsmri View Post
    Guild Wars 2 has been in development since before Wrath was released. They're not copying anything.
    Not to mention the idea of homogenization is complete crap lol. Make every class the same was the worst idea they have ever had...it suits players fine by letting every class seem important , but it takes away being a unique class and making you the same as the other class.

  7. #187
    Scarab Lord Blznsmri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Biggiej View Post
    Not to mention the idea of homogenization is complete crap lol. Make every class the same was the worst idea they have ever had...it suits players fine by letting every class seem important , but it takes away being a unique class and making you the same as the other class.
    Well in GW1 there was homogenization in the sense of Dual professions. The only issue with it was it was a bitch and a half to balance and they hired the wrong guy to do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by SW:TOR
    Jokerseven - Kinetic Combat Shadow - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Ce'lia - Combat Sentinel - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Sentinel PVE Basics for the two Specs that matter

  8. #188
    Dreadlord Ibbi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    863
    Gonna kick some major ass in GW2 as an Elementalist

  9. #189
    Dreadlord Anthoren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    949
    So many weapons, and combos of weapons and abilities so far (probably way more than have been shown) I just don't know what to choose but I know i will be a thief.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthoren View Post
    So many weapons, and combos of weapons and abilities so far (probably way more than have been shown) I just don't know what to choose but I know i will be a thief.
    If I were you, I would try double daggers and a bow, here is a list of skills for a thief.

    Leaping Death Blossom is the coolest weapon combo skill for a Thief (IMHO) coupled with the fact that daggers seem to be the strongest melee weapon for thieves. As for your secondary weapon set, I would choose a ranged weapon for more versatility. Pistols are definitely higher single target damage, but bows dominate at AoE for thieves.

    Depending on what you prefer tho, you could go Pistol/Pistol instead of Dagger/Dagger. Sword is only Main-Hand and seems to be more geared towards PvP.

    Please note, this only applies to what we have seen so far as skills may be changed out, or revised, and we also have very little info about Traits for most classes.

  11. #191
    I'm still waiting for concept of proper boss design without tanks. Just admit it's impossible. WoW and other games are using them because it is impossible to do other way without trivialing encounter.

    And since when D&D had bosses? Encounters there are extremally primitive.

  12. #192
    Dreadlord Anthoren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by Miggetmagic View Post
    If I were you, I would try double daggers and a bow, here is a list of skills for a thief.

    Leaping Death Blossom is the coolest weapon combo skill for a Thief (IMHO) coupled with the fact that daggers seem to be the strongest melee weapon for thieves. As for your secondary weapon set, I would choose a ranged weapon for more versatility. Pistols are definitely higher single target damage, but bows dominate at AoE for thieves.

    Depending on what you prefer tho, you could go Pistol/Pistol instead of Dagger/Dagger. Sword is only Main-Hand and seems to be more geared towards PvP.

    Please note, this only applies to what we have seen so far as skills may be changed out, or revised, and we also have very little info about Traits for most classes.
    i was thinking of double daggers and pistol offhand daggers but again there is just...so so so much to think about. Funny I used to get this kind of feeling about specs in WoW a long(like super long) time ago, i miss it.

  13. #193
    Scarab Lord Blznsmri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    I'm still waiting for concept of proper boss design without tanks. Just admit it's impossible. WoW and other games are using them because it is impossible to do other way without trivialing encounter.

    And since when D&D had bosses? Encounters there are extremally primitive.
    How would it trivialize the encounter? Are you simply thinking in terms that you know? I.e. WoW, Guild Wars 1 had NO TANKS WHAT SO EVER, yet it was a very successful MMO
    Quote Originally Posted by SW:TOR
    Jokerseven - Kinetic Combat Shadow - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Ce'lia - Combat Sentinel - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Sentinel PVE Basics for the two Specs that matter

  14. #194
    Dreadlord Anthoren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by Blznsmri View Post
    How would it trivialize the encounter? Are you simply thinking in terms that you know? I.e. WoW, Guild Wars 1 had NO TANKS WHAT SO EVER, yet it was a very successful MMO
    people are afraid of change, in all of aspects life, to politics, to medicine, religion, sexuality and on and on so of course people who play rpg games with the holy trinity as it is called would be likely to not understand how a similar fantasy mmo type of game work without it. As for me, my only mmo was WoW but after all i have learned of Guild Wars 2, it can and likely will be a major competitorin the newest cycle of mmo's

  15. #195
    The Lightbringer jvbastel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Flanders
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    I'm still waiting for concept of proper boss design without tanks. Just admit it's impossible. WoW and other games are using them because it is impossible to do other way without trivialing encounter.

    And since when D&D had bosses? Encounters there are extremally primitive.
    The thing is, some bosses in WoW are also untankable (first that comes to mind is mimiron Ph2) these are just exceptions though, since blizz has based its game around the tank/dps/healer trinity, so they can't drop tanks for a large number of bosses. Give me 1 reason why you absolutely need a tank to make a boss encounter.

    GW1 had some fun endbosses (The lich,Shiro,Abaddon) and neither of them required you to have a tank, yet, they were fairly challenging, especially on hard mode. They were also fun.

    The fact that you've never seen an mmo without the trinity doesn't mean they don't exist, or are impossible to do.
    As is said before, tanks are illogical, irl, noone would just stand still and let huge monsters hit him

  16. #196
    Scarab Lord Blznsmri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by jvbastel View Post
    The thing is, some bosses in WoW are also untankable (first that comes to mind is mimiron Ph2) these are just exceptions though, since blizz has based its game around the tank/dps/healer trinity, so they can't drop tanks for a large number of bosses. Give me 1 reason why you absolutely need a tank to make a boss encounter.

    GW1 had some fun endbosses (The lich,Shiro,Abaddon) and neither of them required you to have a tank, yet, they were fairly challenging, especially on hard mode. They were also fun.

    The fact that you've never seen an mmo without the trinity doesn't mean they don't exist, or are impossible to do.
    As is said before, tanks are illogical, irl, noone would just stand still and let huge monsters hit him
    The Lich and Shiro fight, before Abaddon was the hardest fight I had ever done.
    Quote Originally Posted by SW:TOR
    Jokerseven - Kinetic Combat Shadow - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Ce'lia - Combat Sentinel - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Sentinel PVE Basics for the two Specs that matter

  17. #197
    arena.net/blog/an-introduction-to-the-environment-art-of-guild-wars-2

    New blog post up

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by jvbastel View Post
    The thing is, some bosses in WoW are also untankable (first that comes to mind is mimiron Ph2) these are just exceptions though, since blizz has based its game around the tank/dps/healer trinity, so they can't drop tanks for a large number of bosses. Give me 1 reason why you absolutely need a tank to make a boss encounter.

    GW1 had some fun endbosses (The lich,Shiro,Abaddon) and neither of them required you to have a tank, yet, they were fairly challenging, especially on hard mode. They were also fun.

    The fact that you've never seen an mmo without the trinity doesn't mean they don't exist, or are impossible to do.
    As is said before, tanks are illogical, irl, noone would just stand still and let huge monsters hit him
    I seriously think you are wasting your time explaining to him unfortunately, some people refuse to see how something can work when they have such a fanboy tunnel vision opinion to anything that is different from their beloved WoW.

    Not having the GW2 servers infected by Tackhisis is a good thing we should try and put him off the game as much as possible.

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by MrSerious View Post
    I ... think you are wasting your time explaining to him..., some people refuse to see how something can work
    And you wasting your time preaching that something will work omitting a little detail, how it would work.

    Just put yourself in boss' cockpit and compare how would you act and what AI does, and realise why the tanks are always needed.

    On unrelated note, Tackhisis is usually considered to be her.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackhisis View Post
    I'm still waiting for concept of proper boss design without tanks. Just admit it's impossible. WoW and other games are using them because it is impossible to do other way without trivialing encounter.

    And since when D&D had bosses? Encounters there are extremally primitive.
    Fact that you don't realize boss fights are trivialized now because of trinity and agro system show that you never played anything without trinity system. Just wait and see.. you will understand.

    And btw.. I wasn't talking about D&D video game.. I was talking about pen and paper version. Did you play it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •