Guild Wars 2 Endgame: You Actually Get to Eat the Carrot

[Ronnin]

See my previous post directed at Ronnin.

Let's assume the end goal of a GW2 dungeon is to beat it, and get the achievement. In WoW, the end goal is to beat the boss to get the best gear.

GW2 relies solely on skill and preparation, whereas WoW features an in-built difficulty reducing mechanism in the form of gear.

In both cases, when a new tier is released, the new content is balanced around the expected power of your character, but in neither case do you need to have done the previous content because in GW2 there is no gear progression, and in WoW you're able to get the valor gear for justice points (which takes a little grinding, which is an annoyance more than anything else).

Having the best gear and having the best achievements are both valid rewards.

For me, it has always been about beating the hardest difficulty in WoW, if i did that i wouldnt play until more content came. Unfortunately my guild disbanded on HM LK in wotlk before we got him, so i quit feeling let down, because i now dont have time to raid at that level. If i can achieve the hardest diffculuty in GW2 say a month after getting level cap, why would i do more content with the same difficulty, thats just me.

I have to go to work though, i do hope you all enjoy GW2, i really do. I just dont think you will a,d feel the developers are making a mistake.

[Malthurius]

I have to go to work though, i do hope you all enjoy GW2, i really do. I just dont think you will a,d feel the developers are making a mistake.

Wow... talk about backhanded statements.

[Trekky]

If i can achieve the hardest diffculuty in GW2 say a month after getting level cap, why would i do more content with the same difficulty, thats just me.

But why would you feel like you would have to do more content? I've asked it like three times already and nobody comes up with an answer.
If you're satisfied with what you've accomplished you can just take a break until more difficult stuff comes out or something, or stop playing altogether.

[Fencers]

Heh, I like how people act like games with this scheme of play are totally unique. There have been MMOs without trinity class systems, non "!" questing, no raid centric endgame, etc, etc in past. Most of GW2's design was seen elsewhere before. GW2 just has a lot more publicity than Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, Tabula Rasa or Fallen Earth.

[Hellgaunt]

If you have any knowledge of current game development, as you seem to claim you do, you know that claiming to have written code that perfects randomizing encounters is as good as impossible in the current time-window. But appareantly you aren't as knowledgeable in game development as you seem to claim.

Anyway, off to work for a while, so i am out of the discussion for now.

Aha, taking up on the lesson about fallacy (same link) you are again displaying a vivid disdain for an orderly discussion. The fallacies keep gushing out of your mouth - this one is called an irrelevant conclusion.

Here's the quick deduction: "You seem to think I claimed to have knowledge of game development, yet you also seem to think that there's such a thing called perfect randomizing encounter, and because you don't think that's possible then I must not know little about game development (code writing)".

That's an irrelevant conclusion because you might be wrong in at least two places here (your knowledge about my knowledge, which you wouldn't know anything about since you don't know what I work with or what I know about coding or statistical coding) and secondly you might be wrong about whether there's something actually called perfect randomized numbers (implied when you say "[...]code that perfect[...]. So let me ask you:

"What is perfect randomized encounters (numbers)"?

[Malthurius]

Heh, I like how people act like games with this scheme of play are totally unique. There have been MMOs without trinity class systems, non "!" questing, no raid centric endgame, etc, etc in past. Most of GW2's design was seen elsewhere before. GW2 just has a lot more publicity than Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, Tabula Rasa or Fallen Earth.

It's more about how they are actually implemented. Not that the same idea was used in some form before. At least to me it is. It is unique in that sense. In that case all games are generally unique.

[kanezfan]

I think what you fail to understand is that the reason rifts/PQs failed is because there was no consequences to not doing them. People ignored them and they went away. In GW2, they don't go away. If the players don't fight back, then they start losing towns and resources, roads, etc... Until they fight back. That's the big difference and IMO that's why GW2 will succeed where WAR/Rift failed with PQs. You're in this fantasy world being attacked by bad guys, and just like in real life, if you don't fight back, yo lose your stuff. I love that. I'm sure it will get tedious at times, but then I can't even log on to my 85s in WoW anymore because I can't stand to run another heroic/lfr, let alone try to put up with raiders that try to tear you down if your choice of gems isn't exactly what's listed on EJ.

There are over 1500 dynamic events. I can't imagine even getting to see a quarter to one half of those by time you hit 80. I think this game is going to be amazing but if you need tier gear from raids to enjoy a game, I sincerely wish you get what you want out of WoW. Me, I'm just bored of the gear grind and the trinity and everything else. I think GW2 is going to revolutionize the MMO industry.

[Razeo]

Heh, I like how people act like games with this scheme of play are totally unique. There have been MMOs without trinity class systems, non "!" questing, no raid centric endgame, etc, etc in past. Most of GW2's design was seen elsewhere before. GW2 just has a lot more publicity than Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, Tabula Rasa or Fallen Earth.

Feel free to point out the people who gave you that kind of impression on this thread. Because I can't recall when.

[Hellgaunt]

Heh, I like how people act like games with this scheme of play are totally unique. There have been MMOs without trinity class systems, non "!" questing, no raid centric endgame, etc, etc in past. Most of GW2's design was seen elsewhere before. GW2 just has a lot more publicity than Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, Tabula Rasa or Fallen Earth.

I don't know about Tabula Rasa or Fallen Earth, for me though, AC and AO were just ahead of their time and failed horribly because of aiming at too high hardware specs (AO simply just killed computers due to it's high demands) - besides the games were full of bugs.

If I don't remember much wrong AO was competing against Ultima Online, which in 2001 were doing really good (sort of a WoW of that time in terms of economic power and number of players compared to the MMO player base).

In any way, they were ahead of time and wholly incomplete - and whether or not GW2 is unique or not it certainly is a bold game and that strikes home with many people I guess - especially because the gameplay and setting is very sleek and they seem to have a good story build in (which AO, AC didn't).

[Palisis]

Academical writing is always multi-dimensional and, at its simplest, two-dimensional: "On one side, on the other hand...". It's technique of writing in which you argue with yourself with the reader as the informed spectator

Not sure what this has to do with GW2, but thank you for the lesson.

Also this:"[...]Firstly, developers are unable to [...] new content isn't released fast enough, and existing content rapidly becomes trivial and rewardless." This is a postulate that you don't back up by facts or example. You also didn't define what defines content as 'completed'? How many players need to go through said content to complete it?

And also this: "[...]but the game does not revolve around endlessly increasing numbers to give the illusion of progression." Another postulate, I could as easily argue that you go through real progress raiding in RIFT, SWTOR, WoW, etc., by defining progress as incremental steps in character power and player learning. That is not illusionary progress, that's very real progress

If you've played WoW long-term you would understand the concepts he's referring to in both instances.

[kendro1200]

I think you need to liven this up a bit, it's too much pseudo-academical for a gaming article, and frankly speaking frontloaded with your own subjective opinion, which runs contradictory to your academic angle

So change the language, shorten it and make the first 10-15 seconds worth reading (most readers decide in 10-15 seconds if they can be bothered to read/watch/look at something).

Hope it helps you.

I strongly disagree, I think it was a wonderfully informative article that helps clarify various aspects and persuade people to give the game a chance before knocking it down. If trying to write intelligently is a crime regardless of subject, then it is a crime that should be committed more often by all. There is no reason to "dumb" down articles, and thus make points, arguments, ideas and information in the article more unclear, just so those who would rather lazily skim through things can think they understand the words better.


Back to the OP, being rather fond of the raiding scene myself, having challenges with a decent number of people present with me as well, I can easily say that I am uncertain towards how long I will stay with GW2. That said, I do have to admit I'm still eager to play the game and give it a good honest try, and see if I will adapt. The WvWvw combat brings back memories of Vanilla AV and SS/TM fights, where epic battles were drawn that could cause servers to crash. The challenges presented in GW2's 5 mans look exciting and remind me of the times of Vanilla and TBC WoW, where there was more than one way to skin a cat. The outdoor dynamic events remind me of epic outdoor bosses, the opening of the Dark Portal and the Gates of AQ opening event.
The way armor, stats, abilities, vanity items and the like are being handled is exciting and intriguing. I like the fact that in the most recent dev article there was mention that in WvWvW and similar types of PvP, while levels will be normalized, and to some extent stats will be as well, that does not mean that effort poured into a character is entirely negated.
I also like the fact that they are getting PvP finely balanced BEFORE BETA, I can't think of any other game developer that has realized the significance of taking care of class balance before you even go into beta stages. That knows to test things at the levels that people will be playing at the most rather than the first few days worth of gameplay.

GW2 is going to be different from WoW, no doubt, but it is going to be different in a lot of good ways. Putting the two in the same genre is kinda unfair, sorta like putting a first person shooter and a third person shooter is unfair. They are both shooters, but they build entirely different types of games built off of perspective. The different perspectives though in this case is the perspective of each development team, and how they wanted to make their respective games.

[Hellgaunt]

I strongly disagree, I think it was a wonderfully informative article that helps clarify various aspects and persuade people to give the game a chance before knocking it down. If trying to write intelligently is a crime regardless of subject, then it is a crime that should be committed more often by all. There is no reason to "dumb" down articles, and thus make points, arguments, ideas and information in the article more unclear, just so those who would rather lazily skim through things can think they understand the words better.

Uhm, since you didn't know I'm telling you know, that the OP was posted here for criticism to get the article reviewed. In order to effectively get the best quality feedback the writer had to change the OP to reflect the reviews (otherwise he'd end up with double, triple, etc, of the same feedback?).

Since his post is already done now, maybe I should go back and edit out my review comment, as more people here don't get that

---------- Post added 2012-02-17 at 12:01 AM ----------

Not sure what this has to do with GW2, but thank you for the lesson.



If you've played WoW long-term you would understand the concepts he's referring to in both instances.

The OP was posted here for review. When you review something you point out weak points in an argument by playing the devil's advocate. But as I'm saying above I'll go and edit it out now.

[Glytch]

A raider not impressed by a game with no raids? who would have thought that

but 10 man doesnt count

[Darkademic]

For me, it has always been about beating the hardest difficulty in WoW, if i did that i wouldnt play until more content came. Unfortunately my guild disbanded on HM LK in wotlk before we got him, so i quit feeling let down, because i now dont have time to raid at that level. If i can achieve the hardest diffculuty in GW2 say a month after getting level cap, why would i do more content with the same difficulty, thats just me.

All the above applies to WoW just as much as it does to GW2. The best WoW guilds are able to complete new content in a matter of weeks. Sometimes the last heroic mode bosses prove very difficult and take longer, such as heroic Ragnaros when Firelands was released, but you're making the assumption that GW2 content won't be as difficult as that. What reason have you to think it won't be difficult?

[Fencers]

It's more about how they are actually implemented. Not that the same idea was used in some form before. At least to me it is. It is unique in that sense. In that case all games are generally unique.

It's not a slight that GW2 has many features seen elsewhere. I am however amused at the perception a lack of say, class trinity or gear progression is a recipe for failure. When historically games which function unlike TOR/WOW can and have done well for themselves.

I don't know about Tabula Rasa or Fallen Earth, for me though, AC and AO were just ahead of their time and failed horribly because of aiming at too high hardware specs (AO simply just killed computers due to it's high demands) - besides the games were full of bugs.

Relative to their time, they were decently successful games. Not UO/EQ big, but that is no different than judging MMOs now by WoW subs. AO took some time to find it's footing. Like AC, AO found a niche player base for years on end.

MMOs have released before with many similar features as GW2. The viability of GW2 by virtue of time, market differences and $ is much higher than games past. Theme park MMOs weren't really the craze pre-WoW.

Feel free to point out the people who gave you that kind of impression on this thread. Because I can't recall when.

The OP and Voidmaster.

[Razeo]

What I find funny about this whole debacle that this thread has turned into over the last few pages is that its a repeat of what Rift and ToR went through prior to their release, only at the same time different. Rift and ToR got bashed and had its share of doomsayings because they were too much like WoW hence the famous "WoW clone" term came into fruition. Now here we are with GW2 trying to change things up a bit and people are saying that it'll fail because it lacks the static endgame gear progression.

Seriously?! lol

[Fencers]

What I find funny about this whole debacle that this thread has turned into over the last few pages is that its a repeat of what Rift and ToR went through prior to their release, only at the same time different.

Exactly. Even seeing it on Tera discussion.

[woodydave44]

Get your terms right.

You're comparing what I said with what someone else said, which shows you only read what you want to read.

But ill explain it to you.


WH PQ rewards did not scale. PQs always had a small chance to drop rare bags depending on the difficulty. As in, the the harder PQs that required more people had a higher chance, where as the easier ones did not. There was no scaling of these encounters either. You either needed 1 person for PQ A, or 20 people for PQ B.

Keep captures dropped different bags depending on the amount of players however.

Is that written well enough?

[Darkademic]

MMOs have released before with many similar features as GW2. The viability of GW2 by virtue of time, market differences and $ is much higher than games past. Theme park MMOs weren't really the craze pre-WoW.

The OP and Voidmaster.

Could you give some examples? That isn't rhetorical, I'm asking because I don't know. Which MMOs have had a power plateau (i.e. no constant increase in power via either levels or gear), or a system where past content never becomes trivialised (by side-kicking or perhaps no levels at all)? Warhammer Online had public quests which were like a less fleshed out version of dynamic events, but have any other MMOs had something similar? In terms of the things I talked about in the article, I think those are the most relevant features.

In any case, the article isn't supposed to portray GW2 as truly unique, or suggest certain (similar if not identical) features haven't been done before, but to show that GW2 is attempting to break some of the current trends in MMOs - hence why I say "most other MMOs do X, Y, Z" rather than "all other MMOs".

[Fencers]

Which MMOs have had a power plateau (i.e. no constant increase in power via either levels or gear)

GW1, Mortal, Ryzom.

or a system where past content never becomes trivialised (by side-kicking or perhaps no levels at all)?

City of Heroes, EQ2.

Warhammer Online had public quests which were like a less fleshed out version of dynamic events, but have any other MMOs had something similar?

Rift.

In any case, the article isn't supposed to portray GW2 as truly unique, or suggest certain (similar if not identical) features haven't been done before, but to show that GW2 is attempting to break some of the current trends in MMOs - hence why I say "most other MMOs do X, Y, Z" rather than "all other MMOs".

I am aware.