Guild Wars 2: The One Thread

[Biggiej]

thanks for this thread. much appreciated! rated the thread - excellent.



thank god for that!! I love this game already. I'm so glad they have done this I've always thought allowing rogues to stay stealthed for as long as they want and escape combat this way was complete bullshit. I'm glad intelligent game developers also share my opinion.

That sounds so cool that you can spot a thief by those kinds of things. I hated WoW duels and arenas, a rogue hides for 15 minutes waiting on CDs after every vanish SOO ANNOYING OMG![COLOR="red"]

[Average Neil]

When i first heard about GW2 I thought to myself: pshhh whatever, who cares etc, but now I can't wait for this game to come out. Everything about it, so far, sounds amazing imho. Not to mention I only need to pay for it once.

Sorry if there are any grammar mistakes.

[Haven]

And what if I have no grass or bushes? Epitome of idiocy in this design.

No, it's actually in your post.

[Trollsbane]

Ok, I'm gonna go through some of the points and answers I recieved, and throw a few more thoughts out there.

-Character models seem to be hit or miss and just overall very subjective and personal. Is there a place where there are some good screenshots to look at for this? i'm glad they see an issue in the blank stares and faces in general. It would be sad to create such a beautiful environment and allow those faces to overshadow it.

-Animations seems to be the exact same as character models, so I'll leave it at that. Personal choices.

-I'm glad they are looking into the class story dialogue popup box thing. It would be great to be more personal than that.

-Just like TOR, it's hard to guage combat since those were players who had no idea wtf they were doing.

Now to the debatables: Where biases will come out, and that's ok. =)

-No trinity system or a veil over the eyes. Hmm.. I don't know about this one tbh. They say they don't want you to "play a healer" cause you need to. Yet, they talk about people switching between aspects to use abilities that heal those around you. Now, obviously healing IS needed. People do get hit, and they do go to a fallen state, and then slip into unconciousness. Am I seeing offensive spells that have a secondary ability to heal those around you? Are you sure this is the way to take the game? Are you sure that's better than a trinity system? It makes the need for healing turn into an automatic thing. Like, you just play your dps game until you want to heal yourslef, and repeat times infinity. Without the need of a healer, the game surely will not make it overly hard to stay alive. Bosses don't focus on one target, but instead use aoe abilities. Everyone around takes damage. But, everyone can heal, and it looked that it was sometimes tied into their offensive skills, or it was simply, place your totem here. You don't heal your tank, you just heal all around you. That does NOT sound interesting, I'm sorry. It negates the need for the mechanic, which some of you see as a good thing. I feel it trivializes the whole combat system.

No trinity system: yes, everyone takes damage, but that doesn't mean one person stands back and heals everyone. Instead, everyone is responsible for their own healing, and for healing other people when they can. Similarly, while there are no tanks, it is possible to physically put yourself between an attacker and a weakened ally to protect them. I think whether you like this or not may come down to personal taste. I am looking forward to a more flexible grouping system, and to everyone having to take responsibility for their own survival. If done right, you shouldn't end up with people being able to get away with no CC/standing in the fire then qq'ing at the healer.

Everyone is responsible for healing themselves, and yes some skills do heal while you do damage, but nothing that will save you based on what I've seen. There are also some skills that will AoE heal party members, but this game has no friendly-targeting-to-heal mechanic and still applies to the whole "this won't save your life if you're being stupid" healing. They took this route so you don't have to bring that player you really don't want to, instead with this system you can bring just your friends and still go though all the content. This may or may not trivialize the combat system, I would really like to get my hands on the demo to test it out though.

That is your bias coming out. If you prefer the trinity that's fine but there are other ways to do things. Look at other games for inspiration besides just mmos.

On the trinity: First of all, GW1 didn't have any real tanks either (although there were some things that made you able to tank, like bodyblocking mobs in a corner, or picking up certain items) so throwing away the tank role is something they have experience with.
Having no dedicated healers is something else though...
If executed correctly, this could be an awesome system. Let's face it, the trinity is getting old, is completely illogical, and well, stupid
Let me compare to TOR. Let's say I'm a Jedi knight tank. While the class looks awesome, it makes no sense whatsoever. Why would a jedi just stand in the middle of the battlefield soaking bullets/lightsaber hits. The whole idea of combat is trying not to be hit. This is not TOR specific ofc.
Also, I am just tired of the same overused system Copy/pasted over and over again. If anet pulls it off, it will be awesome. This will require some whole new mechanics though. Look at some guardian control skills

So to sum up what you guys have said: There is more flexibility in this system. People are more responsible for keeping themself alive. People being stupid will die, because the aoe heals aren't designed to save them, but merely help. I can understand the design thought. No tanks means everyone gets hit by the big baddy. "Yell all you want, you won't hold my attentions you little warrior. I will crush you all" No healers means there is no need to take people just cause they heal, and it doesn't make people do something they don't want to do just to succeed in an encounter. Ok.

But doesn't this worry you that to compensate for the possibility that no one will be healing others, that the encounters will simply be too easy? The reason I say it may trivialize combat is, if it's not "needed", then why worry? By needed, I mean as a dedicated role. A powerful "I will keep you alive, Brother" kind of role. If everyone can just heal themself, then it turns into, don't be stupid and forget to heal yourself. Conscious, thoughtful players will use attacks that have am AOE healing effect, or drop the standards to heal others around them. But will that be the majority? I have to say that I doubt it. And my guess is that the devs also are thinking, "Many people won't do that. They want to pound the boss, not help heal another player that can heal themself." It seems to me that if you simply move out of the fire, and don't forget to heal after the boss's AOE hits you a couple times, then you really have nothing to worry about. You know what I mean?



-Single player, or MMO... Are you sure about that? "GW is a persistant world that defines what an MMO is all about" "I'm not saying this is the best way, but I think other developers should take note on what it really means to make a massive multiplayer experience" (those are parphrased from memory, and are not word for word quotes) Initially, I was captivated by the concept of players joing events and working together to get shit done. When I looked deeper into it, I saw many contradictions to this. They said, "We don't want you to feel like you have to talk to any other players" "We don't want a player to need to group with other players to play the game" What does this mean? Well, from what I can tell, it is exclusively a single player game through and through. "But Trolls, wtf are you talking about? There were 50 other people there fighting the same dude!?!" In the events and in the developers talking about them, the same thing kept coming up. No interaction at all with other players. There was no need to because you just hop in, it scales a bit, and you leave. (Much like rifts in Rift. You simply go there, join public group, kill bad guys, get loot. Go seperate ways. No talk.) There was no need because we don't feel like we should ever make you have to talk to the other players. I can fight these ogres by myself and still move on. Or, a player can come in, and we can both kill them and move on. Or, 50 players may come and we kill them, and move on. There is no difference at all, and you never once need to care AT ALL what the other players are doing. You simply do your thing, then move on.
The difference between this and other MMos is that this acts as your leveling system AND your endgame. You roam the world in search of dynamic scripted events that are taking place, you help the little NPC, and get your rewards, and move on. In other MMOS, you do your quests, and move on. You ultimately get to max level and get to play the end game. What is going to keep me playing GW2? More "leveling" events? More time not caring about what ANYONE else is doing? This just doesn't click with me. It doesn't seem to encourage working together at all. You have no need to whatsoever. Do it alone, or do it with 50. It's the same. Do it and move on. Am I really off the mark here?

The single player aspect: you're right that there is a lot of options to play single player. As well as being able to do a lot alone in the world, there is your personal story. But there is also the flip side of that, which is that you don't lose out if you're fighting something, other people turn up and help. There can be no kill-stealing. So spontaneous cooperation should be a LOT easier in GW2 than in wow. I think the idea is to give people the choice, rather than penalise someone for their preferred play style.
No endgame: developers have said the whole game is endgame. There is no need to rush to the level cap (though you can if you want). There are 5mans, pvp, dynamic events, personal story, and a whole world to explore. Gear plateaus so there is no pressure to be constantly upgrading. Personally, I am really looking forward to this approach: a focus on enjoying the world and the journey, rather than racing through it to then grind gear and finally raid and/or pvp. I do think it will take some effort to get used to the new mindset of GW2, but I think it could make for a more enjoyable game than wow (levelling alts at least would be a lot less boring!). At any rate, it seems worth giving it a try.

I am a bit worried about how this will play out in GW2, I did play the Rift beta and it was quite worrisome that people just split after Rifts, and hardly talked at all during them. However, I think GW2's setup is a bit better - the fact that there will ONLY be Dynamic Events in the open world (aside from Personal Story) may end up bringing people into parties for a great amount of time. Communication is going to be necessary for people to know whats going on and where, and I think this will help people stay in groups, and maybe eventually meet some new friends.

It deviates from the traditional system of grouping. The hope is to promote teamwork and community with the scaling and non tagging feature. What I mean by that is that in WoW, for example, you have two players out of group, one hits a mob first and all of the rewards of that mob (experience and loot) will go to him irregardless of how much help the other player does in that encounter. In GW2 this is not the case. Players won't have to be afraid to help out another player because they are scared of kill stealing or whatever. With the overall theme of events and such the goal here is for everyone to work together to complete the goal. Does it matter that they are in a "group" for it?

I don't really get your reasoning. You say that during rifts, noone spoke, but those people were most likely just levelling solo anyway. In a game like wow or TOR, there are no dynamic events (afaik) to even try to get these people to play together. In GW2 however, you can run up to someone clearing a centaur base, and helping him will benefit both players.Without even grouping up. If you decide not to say hi and just hack away, sure, but that's you wanting to play a single player game, not the game being single player. Anet gives all the options to the player.

Even though this negates tagging, and promotes players helping eachother, I still don't see how that makes them come together. Someone is doing a dynamic event, and you run in and help them. You are helping because you want the reward. It scales to how many people are there, and the scale doesn't matter if it is 1 person or 50. It is still doable. So, you run and helped that guy, and then you both run off with reward. No words were spoken. No happiness or bond formed between the 2 of you. You simply killed the same things in the same place at the same time, and left. The same can be said in a event where 50 people are there.
This is how you level. This is the end game. This is the entire game. I fail to see how this makes this game anymore of a MMO than a game with a traditional endgame like raiding. While the leveling in traditional games is largely a solo experience, that definately changes at end game. Teamwork is 100% needed in those games. And that is the draw. But where is it needed in GW? It's not. Because the devs don't want you to ever have to group or talk to anyone if you don't want to. That's not entirely different from traditional end game. You can solo quests or join pugs and never speak. What is my incentive to join a guild and run around doing events with them, when I can do it by myself or with randoms? Don't get me wrong. Guilds will add a community to the game. But where is the need to interact with others to do anything? And if there is no need, how can the devs claim that they have the answer on how to make it a true multiplayer experience. Just cause you can see 30 other people fighting the same dude as you does not mean you are interacting with them at all. You are simply in the same pace at the same time doing your own thing.

This IS the same as rifts. There is absolutely no difference. You either beat the enemy and move on, or they overwhelm you and they move on to mess more NPCs up. No one talks. No one cares about anyone else there. They get their rewards, and they leave. Perhaps 5 of those people are in a guild together and are purposely playing with eachother. but the other people there are nothing more than an NPC helping you kill mobs. There is no true multiplayer here when events scale, negating the difficulty and necessity of cooperation.

Traditional games do not push helping eachotehr or working together while leveling. This is left for endgame. But GW endgame is the same as leveling. That is the difference.

I don't see this system as having a lot of opportunities to solo content. I see it as having limited opportunites to work together and play multiplayer. If everyone is just there for themself, then multiplayer is not true. It is simply multiple players playing solo next to eachother. It's like saying I am not solo questing Hyjal. i'm multiplayer questing because there are 100 other people doing the same things I am doing.

Now, I understand that you can say hello to these players and decide to group and go do events together. But, how many people will really be that outgoing and willing to do that when there is no need to? most people think most other people playing are jackasses. If everything scales with numbers, but remains able to be solod or 2 manned, why bother with other people?

I think I lost my train of thought and am simply repeating now. So, engage in the thought process. How do you see these things happening and what am I missing, assuming, or just being biased about?

<3

[Anthoren]

So this is kind of going to be directed to Trollsbane, now no i am not invalidating your concerns but i just would like you to note that we have not seen many if at all types of mechanics for bosses, i believe the area boss dragon was not fully up to scratch down for obvious reasons. Also you need to take into account that i am almost positive that healing abilities have fairly long cool downs. So i sort of find your points a bit critical as i think the game is still either pre-alpha or early alpha as far as a I know. Now note this is just points about your concerns of combat and boss mechanics. maneuverability, shielding, and healing as an individual have been made a very high priority in GW2 so what you feel could come to pass, but I kind of doubt that it would get to that a point, I feel that they are trying very hard as a development team to get this game right because it does take or try to take many innovative steps for an MMO. So like all of my posts here i am at the stance that the game is not even in beta so being too critical is kind of pointless unless their are blatant and obvious flaws, so like always I'm staying positive.

[Doozerjun]

Is there a cliff notes version, trollbane?

Anyway, a note on the difficulty of encounters, I'm not worried at all. In the latest PAX demo there was an encounter with some bandits and pirates that wasn't made easier. People were dying left and right in that encounter and if you didn't move you would get two shot from the boss. What you have to do though is take what you know from other mmos like WoW and throw that knowledge out the window. If you have played some more active mmos like Vindictus or even an FPS then that will help you better understand how to approach the combat in GW2.

[Trollsbane]

Psh, cliff notes. Um... How does the removal of the trinity system really make this game more thana single player FPS game where you only nrely on yourself. And if the entire game (leveling and "endgame") is dynamic events, then how is it considered a multiplayer game since the events can be done solo or with 50 people who don't give a damn about anyone else there, because they don't mater in the scheme one bit. =D

I am a fan of long winded discussions as opposed to the classic, "NO SWIMMING! RAWR RAGE!" that take up 10 pages for no reason.

I know it's still Pre Alpha area, Anthoren. There's just so much released on it already that to start wondering is easy. (TOR on the other hand isn't releasing jack shit. lol)

That's cool to hear about the bandit/pirate thing, Doozer I didn't see that video. I hear what you mean mean by the FPS analogy, but that's kinda where my curiosity comes in. If it is all about you doing what you need to do and not relying on others, then why worry about others at all?

[Doozerjun]

Do you think there are team tactics in an FPS or a game like Vindictus?

Edit: I wanted to edit this by stating something that I hardly ever see mentioned here. Don't forget about cross class combos. The obvious one an elementalist wall of fire and then a ranger or warrior firing their ranged weapon through that wall of fire to add an effect to the enemy. There are quite a bit of the cross class combinations but they can only be found out by discovery.

[Trollsbane]

I know there definately can be. (Talking FPS here. I have never played Vindictus) But I also know that they often go out the window and no one cares unless they are RL friends or in a guild.

Take Battlegrounds in WoW for instance. (Cause everyone knows that) Team tactics win the day. Work together, win. Fight on the roads or in the middle, lose. (unless you have a strat to make it work of course) Anyway, the consequence of not working together is very evident. You most likely will not win.

Now in GW, the devs have said that they don't want you to ever feel like you have to group or talk to another player. So right there, it tells me that the logic that was the WoW winning BG team is not used in GW. If there is no need to group or talk to other players, then the content can not be made with the thought in mind that it is needed at all.

So, if there is no need to talk to another person, that means that there is no need to group with another person, which means that the content is not designed around group mechanics. It's designed with the thought that 5 people fighting this event may not work together at all, and we need to accomodate that.

So the best answer is to make each person be able to keep themselves alive by their own means. Self heals, LoS, dodge, etc. And that totally takes away any need to ever worry about the 4 other random people fighting next to you. If they die, then the event scales down. You can still complete it.

The cross class combos is a cool feature for sure, but is also one used to simply add flare. Ther is no real bearing on the game other than coolness factor. If i'm an archer, i am not gonna go running around for a wall of fire to shoot through. If I'm an elementalist, I am not going to run around looking for a warrior to whirlwind.

[LeBoucher]

- For the last time, there are no healing roles in the game. Sure there might be professions that can do better than others in healing, as well as taking damage (tanking), but there are no damned roles.

- Animations are really nice, I can't see anyone complaining about them here. Have you played Rift? You most assuredly have played WoW. In that case, animations are spectacular in GW2 compared to two former. I will agree that the faces are blank, it almost feels like I'm gonna get raped by a Charr when I stare into their eyes. I'll just have to play it safe by putting a steel plate over my ass.

- On the point of single player, grouping, and how teamwork will happen: Think of it like TF2; when you play the game long enough, you begin to understand the roll of each class, and how to work the class correctly in every situation. As and Engineer you learn the best place to put your sentry, and as a demoman you learn where to place stickies in order to stop the opposing team dead in their tracks. Once a player learns these things, then they ultimately contribute to the team effort without even knowing it. Sometimes it even goes a bit further where a Pyro will be nice and put out a player who is on fire. TEAMWORK! YAY! The same thing will happen in GW2.

About single player though: Let's face it, besides from PvP the rest of the game will be uber casual. But that's not a problem considering it's F2P and there is a lot to explore in Tyria alone. Perhaps in a future expansion they'll decide to add huge player raids instead of just world events. Until then, I can accept that not implementing huge raids was a good idea considering they want to focus on important things as well as making the game a personal experience for the player. And that alone makes me a happy camper.

[Doozerjun]

Certain events are most certainly designed for more than just one person. The Shatterer event is one of those. Also you cannot complete a dungeon by yourself either.

[Nerio]

Been hyped up on this game for a while now; hope it comes out this year

[Trollsbane]

I know and never said there were roles in this game =/

I hear what the thought is on how grouping could work. I just don't see how it will actually play out in, let's face the facts here, a genre of memememe people. Even in WoW, where teamwork was needed in a raid, there were plenty of shaman who wouldn't drop the windfury totem for the melee. There were plenty of hunters who would not misdirect when they should have. etc. Why do you think this game will be different?

For the dungeons I agree with you. For Shatterer, while obviously designed for multiple people or you die, there still is no need to do anything with or for another player. I've seen that video from different perspectives enough to see pretty much no one doing anything useful for other people.

[Kanggaxx]

Due to recent unsatisfaction with WoW i have started playing GW1 again. I didnt like it at all a few years ago, but it's like a breath of fresh air to me now. I can PvP to get loads of money, beautiful armor (female ranger Norn armor fuck yeah) and Hall of Monuments points to spend on Gw2. It makes the wait a lot less painful. I also enjoy how there are PvE and PvP versions of a skill, and its not confusing at all unlike what blizzard would want you to believe.

[Doozerjun]

For the dungeons I agree with you. For Shatterer, while obviously designed for multiple people or you die, there still is no need to do anything with or for another player. I've seen that video from different perspectives enough to see pretty much no one doing anything useful for other people.

Again, I have to remind you and others that what you see in the videos are people who don't know how to play yet. I'm sure you have to say that to those watching TOR videos. Here it is even worse since the system is just really different than any other mmo. Also keep in mind when judging how difficult an encounter is by the videos is that in the demos it is all dumbed down. They specifically said for the Shatterer that they wanted everyone to see the encounter so the difficulty of it was brought way down. When the game goes live you most certainly will have to work together or you will fail it.

[Kanggaxx]

About single player though: Let's face it, besides from PvP the rest of the game will be uber casual.

What makes you say this? Why should i 'face' it?

GW1 had a fricking hard mode that affected every single pve mob in the game. There are many very difficult places to go to that can kick your ass if you fail but give great rewards if you dont. Im guessing the PvE will be fairly enjoyable as well and challenging in the 'Repeatable Dungeon' mode if Gw1 is any indication.

[Underskilled]

Something to note, April 28th is the birthday of Guild Wars, which means there's a VERY good chance Arenanet is going to do, or release something special that day.

[Trollsbane]

Again, I have to remind you and others that what you see in the videos are people who don't know how to play yet. I'm sure you have to say that to those watching TOR videos. Here it is even worse since the system is just really different than any other mmo. Also keep in mind when judging how difficult an encounter is by the videos is that in the demos it is all dumbed down. They specifically said for the Shatterer that they wanted everyone to see the encounter so the difficulty of it was brought way down. When the game goes live you most certainly will have to work together or you will fail it.

I can definately get on board with that. If you really do have to work together to get things done, then that's awesome. But I won't lie, my mind keeps going back to this thought process:

Now in GW, the devs have said that they don't want you to ever feel like you have to group or talk to another player. So right there, it tells me that the logic that was the WoW winning BG team is not used in GW. If there is no need to group or talk to other players, then the content can not be made with the thought in mind that it is needed at all.
So, if there is no need to talk to another person, that means that there is no need to group with another person, which means that the content is not designed around group mechanics. It's designed with the thought that 5 people fighting this event may not work together at all, and we need to accomodate that.

if I'm beating a dead horse, I'm sorry. I'm just interested in the game, and picking things apart to find answers and hear other people's thoughts on the discussion. Cause well, in a lot of GW2 threads, it's been full of sunshine happiness and I can't learn anything from just hearing people say how this will be the best game ever.

[Doozerjun]

What makes you say this? Why should i 'face' it?

GW1 had a fricking hard mode that affected every single pve mob in the game. There are many very difficult places to go to that can kick your ass if you fail but give great rewards if you dont. Im guessing the PvE will be fairly enjoyable as well and challenging in the 'Repeatable Dungeon' mode if Gw1 is any indication.

I doubt they will have something as soul crushing as the Domain of Anguish (when it first came out) in GW2.

---------- Post added 2011-04-27 at 01:14 AM ----------

I


if I'm beating a dead horse, I'm sorry. I'm just interested in the game, and picking things apart to find answers and hear other people's thoughts on the discussion. Cause well, in a lot of GW2 threads, it's been full of sunshine happiness and I can't learn anything from just hearing people say how this will be the best game ever.

Heh, I can certainly understand some doubt. Personally I don't mind if someone says they don't like a certain feature or even the game itself. What irritates me is when someone lies about the game or even distorts facts to suit their own agenda, either against or for the game.

One nice thing about the game is that it is a pick up and play game. It isn't designed around raids and gear so you don't have to plan your life around it. Also if you don't play it for a month you don't feel guilty about it since it's not designed to be a constant game like WoW is. It sounds like you are interested well enough. As long as the game comes out well made enough then get the game. If there are certain features missing or that you don't like then you can find another game to fill that certain craving. For example, if you are the type of player that really likes organized instanced raids then you won't find that in this game. Maybe play WoW or another raid game alongside it.

About April 28th, I hope it's a profession reveal.

[jvbastel]

Psh, cliff notes. Um... How does the removal of the trinity system really make this game more thana single player FPS game where you only nrely on yourself.

I think we'll have to wait and see what happens. It's definitely a bold move, and it can fail miserably, but I like it, since it's really the biggest change to the gameplay, and that's what the genre needs. It will need to be executed in a correct manner though. I agree that a system like this might make the game look like it's everyone for themselves, however, Arenanet is just using a different trinity, Damage/Support/control.

Control will be cc'ing/controlling the battlefield with area affects (guardian has a shield that reflects all projectiles back to the caster and can draw a line on the ground that is impossible to pass for enemies)
Support will have some offheals (although players shouldn't rely too heavy on them, it's been stated that selfheal is always the best heal) and probably skills like blind, buffs, etc... (I haven't looked into the skills all that much, don't want to spoil the entire game )
Damage is ... damage

The main focus of the game will still be taking the least possible damage while killing the boss. In a standard DPS/TANK/HEALER system, this is done by having a masochistic tank taking all the damage, while in GW, it will be by dodging, slowing mobs, good positioning and control.

That said, They will still need to execute it right, or the whole system might fail.

And if the entire game (leveling and "endgame") is dynamic events, then how is it considered a multiplayer game since the events can be done solo or with 50 people who don't give a damn about anyone else there, because they don't mater in the scheme one bit. =D

What Anet is trying to do, I think, is leave it completely up to the player, if you want to just go single player, you can, but if you want to play the game, and meet new people while exploring, make new friends, that's also encouraged. The problem with giving the player the choice is that the game will need a good, friendly community for this. The guild wars 1 community was always fairly mature and friendly (High end pvp players were the exceptions, since the could be quite elitist, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that if you were bad in pvp, it was rather obvious (W/Mo with mending anyone?)). For example, say you are a guardian fighting a bunch of pirates in a town together with an elementalist and a necromancer. When the pirates are killed, a new event starts where you can chase a few remaining pirates to their base. The odds are high that the other players will join, too. In events with a lower player count, this might encourage you to talk to the other player. Events with a larger amount of players will probably not get you new friends, since there's too much people. That's the main problem with rifts I think.
As for endgame, I don't think we've seen all there is to it yet, however, the real endgame atm is dungeons and raid world events. for the dungeons, you'll need a good group since they will be rather challenging, according to Anet, so you're encouraged to play with friends/guildies.

I am a fan of long winded discussions as opposed to the classic, "NO SWIMMING! RAWR RAGE!" that take up 10 pages for no reason.

And I thank you for that, it's better to have someone give constructive criticism

If it is all about you doing what you need to do and not relying on others, then why worry about others at all?

Remember that what we've seen as of yet is just a few (most of them dumbed down) dynamic events, we've seen no dungeons, no real raid events, no pvp, so most of the stuff we've seen is tailored for ad hoc groups, meaning it can't be too hard. I really want them to release a dungeon video soon, so we can see how people have to work together in them.

I think you read too much into the "you should never need to group or talk with other players"
What I think they meant is, you can, if you want, just level as if it were a single players game, and just ignore other players, and there's a great personal storyline (like TOR's) for that. But they also say the mechanics of the game (dynamic events etc.) lean towards ad hoc group creation/socializing. The same is true for TOR btw, haven't they stated that you will be able to get max level by playing your personal storyline only? (Or am i making stuff up now )