Guild Wars 2

Fan site with loads of info

I know that not too many of you play Guild Wars, but there are at least a few other people interested. Anyway, there is a Guild Wars 2 coming out sometime (Beta is tentatively set for 2008), and the original Guild Wars will be recieving no more campaigns (although at least one expansion pack is scheduled for sometime this year, called Eye of the North).

I can’t say I didn’t expect it, but I am still sort of surprised. They mentioned bloat (due to the constant releasing of campaigns) as a major reason for moving on.

They also mentioned that there will be no monthly fees of any kind, which is definitely cool.

I dunno if I can get excited about playing as the Charr. Not sure about the “no level-cap” thing either. How is that going to allow PvP to be balanced?

Dunno. I’ve got no real idea about it at the moment, getting the magazine tomorrow to find out more.

They won’t say much for a while, I guess.

What is known is that the two major changes are a rework of the control (being able to jump, less rubberbanding and more direct control) and open areas/world shared between all other players.

Basically they are ditching some of their exclusive features to be more like a virtual world in the hope to gain more appeal and be considered more like a classic mmorpg.

It’s not anymore an hybrid, but a “true” mmorpg, probably more biased toward loot and level-up.


I have a hard time believing that last bit. Since Day 1 (and even in the dev logs prior to release) Anet has been all about ensuring that players have equal access to max gear, and not giving much importance to levelling.

They might add some of the “traditional features” (many of which I consider despicable), but they won’t move away from such a core area of development.

I’m not sure if I agree that the changes are the right direction. One of the things that my Guild likes is the campaigns and the PVE stuff. Some of them participate in PVP but we’re a small Guild and getting a team together that works is difficult. Instead we go farm the Underworld or Sorrow’s Furnace for some fun. Some of the changes might actually Nerf the game where we like it the best.

The higher level cap will make things different because you’ll have to create a PVP character rather than use an existing one. I like using my main monk in PVP and using the various rare items I’ve worked so hard to acquire. I don’t care that I have 1000+ deaths on the character either. It saves me a character slot by using my primary.

There’s a few important things that makes this game: NO FEE, Choice between PVP or PVE, NEW CONTENT, the ability to do quests with\without other people, the even footing every one is on PVP, The constant adjustments to skills so there really isn’t an Uber build. Screw with too much of this and they’ll loose their base of customers.

While I don’t agree with your definition of the good part (PvP 4 LYF3 here), I did kinda stumble myself on the question of how they will keep that stable.

The limitless levels must be a meaningless sop to all the whingers who hated having only 20.

They did say that instancing would still be a part of the game (Gaile Grey made sure to spam that and “No monthly fees!”), just a smaller part.

So I’d guess FoW and UW type stuff would still be there.

I am an ANet fanboy, but I have next to no hope for Guild Wars 2.

I hope to be proven wrong, though.

I read about this last week and was dissapointed. Sounds like they are making the whole thing less group/mission oriented and more WoW-like to try and appeal to the masses. Big mistake.

I play Guild Wars like it’s some sort of geeky D&D night. I have a small group of friends and we play together once a week, knocking out a mission/quest or two each time. The way the game is designed is perfect for this. And if we get bored in between we can always do PvP.

Switching the focus off the missions and storylines undermines one of the game’s greatest strengths. Making it into a non-instanced grindfest of 100+ levels will simply make it unplayable with friends in the same way EQ2 or WoW is (i.e. if some friends level faster than others your group eventually splits and dissolves). I wonder if it will still be free or if they’ll change their minds and want $15 a month for GW2?

It’s not called “Guild Wars” for nothing. I think you guys are just being a little too wildly assuming about the whole deal.

— Alan

I really like that they admitted that adding campaign after campaign was bloating the game, and that they wanted to try something different.

The original was pretty awesome.

So I’m gonna stick around and see what happens with it, as I trust Anet to do something pretty awesome (so long as they get to take their own sweet time about it).

I personally think that real character advancement will stop after, for example, 20, like it does now, and the rest of the “levels” are just skill points. Except that now they count them.

That seems rational enough, right?

Like I said, all I’ve wanted to see is explorable areas where you can just randomly meet up with people. Basically, when entering an explorable, give the player a choice – you want your own, self-contained version, or do you want to share it? Just like town districts. Leave the missions the same, the towns the same, but I miss the experience of random human encounters while exploring.

That does sound like the perfect solution. I ended up back in mudding because I also missed randomly encountering people. Good idea!

More info on Kotaku direct from the developers.

I don’t know, I like the sound of it. A lot.

Despite having several worlds, the game uses a global database so you can instantly transfer between worlds, Strain said.

OMG! They stole my idea ;)

On the other side the PvP sounds as lame as ever:

“By achieving victories in these battles there will be benefits to your world,” Strain said. “Bonuses, advantages, maybe everyone gets increased energy regeneration or healing rate or enhanced loot drop rate.”

PvP to gain PvE bonuses? Yawn. Stop doing these gimmicks, they do not motivate anyone and never work as incentives.

Give back PvP to PvP. Not PvP tacked on PvE. Give us world conquest and territory control. Not more deathmatches and WoW’s clones.

Sounds great. I’m really glad that they have essentially declared HA will stay in, but will get changed up every now and again. I find that it gets boring fast unless changes come through to break the tedium.

As for the PvP victories rewarding PvE, its clear that they won’t be making any zone entrances require it, especially since they are testing not having that connection right now in GW1. The rest of it (regen bonuses, +hp) is just what you get from the statues right now in GW1 when your side holds Halls, and those are perfectly fine. No one complains about not being able to buy +1att point from an Avatar, just that they can’t get into FoW or UW.

Most importantly, random events in the wild == Freakin sweet!

And HRose, do you even play GW? PvP is the primary focus of everything. I’ve yet to hear someone (besides you) say that the PvP feels tacked on. In fact, if you check (arguably the most frequented fansite), it’ll be obvious to you that most players feel that PvE, not PvP, is the tacked on bit.

“Tacked on” as lacking structure and meaning, not in the sense of lacking dev focus.

It’s a common complaint that PvP isn’t much more than guild bragging rights (and the reason why it only appeals a niche). It’s a bit an end to itself, not really connected with the structure of the game.

Basically it lacks what territorial control and persistence would offer. Structure, meaning, purpose, motivation.

Explaining better the reason of my comment:

What obviously the devs are trying to do with GW2 is to restore in the game the “virtual world” feel. So they make the zones shared, they use zone-wide events and so on. In a simpler definition: persistence.

They are trying to give back the PvE that persistent/shared feel that was typical of other MMO (part of their ideal) and that was missing in GW.

NOW. You notice?

They are touching PvE in meaningful ways. But they aren’t doing the same for PvP. They are NOT giving the persistent/shared feel ALSO to the PvP. Just for PvE.

Now the point is:

  • We have PLENTY of games that do that for PvE. While we get NONE (or close to none) that does that for PvP.

So that’s what Guild Wars is in its essence: an attempt to appeal more to the PvE crowd, even if that offer is actually already crowded in itself.

I can’t give away too many details at this time but we are most assuredly NOT leaving the PvP alone. Persistence will carry over into PvP…go read the Kotaku stuff closely or find a copy of PC Gamer and you can pretty plainly see that. When Jeff Strain describes the world PvP as a “strategy game” in the Kotaku article he is talking about taking and holding territory in a persistent world. The Kotaku article is vague about this while the PC Gamer article is much more specific so if you really want to inform yourself I’d suggest grabbing a copy of PC Gamer.

I’d hardly get a copy of PC Gamer in Italy.

Anyway, if that’s about territorial control I definitely support it. As long it’s true world PvP and not PvP mingled with PvE. And with some persistence.

For example, someone could say that even in WoW you can “take and hold” territory by owning those towers they put in the new zones and that are used to leech other forms of personal rewards.

I obviously mean something more under the direct control of the players and guilds. Risk-like.

What I read was:

And these inter-world battles in the Mists, which Strain says almost play like a large real-time strategy game, can have a real impact on the worlds.

“By achieving victories in these battles there will be benefits to your world,” Strain said. “Bonuses, advantages, maybe everyone gets increased energy regeneration or healing rate or enhanced loot drop rate.”

Strain says the world-versus-world match-ups will be shuffled every couple of weeks to make sure things stay fair.

Starting from the last line it is described as an EXACT copy of WoW’s current battlegroups, where a number of servers are grouped for the same PvP instances. The only difference being that these match-ups aren’t fixed but will be switched.

Then you look at the “real impact” and you see it comes in the form of PvE bonuses, which I already commented and is lame.

Now with what you said I could guess that these match-ups aren’t just standard deathmatches, but some kind of more elaborated fights.

The point here is if this is just “fiction” (you win “x” battles and the games “fakes” territorial control, not unlike to the method used in Factions), or if that territorial control is OBJECT of the PvP and not just its projection. From the sound of it I fear it’s just a projection that measures your overall performance as a realm and then “projects” it in the form of world vs world. I want visceral and immersive PvP, not weird PvP “lore” working like a detached assumption.

Is this real warfare or just the same stuff with a new dress?

Considering that every two weeks the system is “reset” I doubt the persistence will be a motivating element.

The real issue about GW, and the ONE objective I’d set for a sequel is: make PvP appealing for casual players and make it accessible in EVERY part without the need to join a professional guild.

Achieve that, build a more complex and persistent system where you fight for something and you are gold. Communal PvP where Guilds are part of the context, not just clan-fights tucked into personal instances. If there’s a battle, people should be able to participate and do their part.