I was basically stating GW2 PvP is e-sport because everyone is supposed to be almost equal and gear doesn't matter at all apparently, also you can "roll".
I was basically stating GW2 PvP is e-sport because everyone is supposed to be almost equal and gear doesn't matter at all apparently, also you can "roll".
roll as in use roll skill lol? Also i don't think equal mean e-sport, i mean auto target in the game pretty much kill any chance of e-sport. All skill go out the window when your attacks hom.
Maxing lvl doesn't mean you get anywhere, you can max lvl but to compete with anyone your going to need cash shop most of the period. As for as WoW cash shop all i know is they offer like character transfer and allience changes? Not sure what other there is. TSW not even out, and Chronoscroll allow people to play for free, which is not cash shop, and RMT is to prevent gold selling. Never said there be any difference, its personal choice, if you don't feel that its worth 15 dollar a month don't play, many of us here feel it is and we will pay that 15 dollar a month. Our problem not yours.
GW2 will not be pay2win. All end game items will have the same stats. There will not be some super rare Holy Sword of Pwnz that will offer stat advantages over less rare weapons. Just like in GW1, once you hit max level getting the highest level gear is fairly simple.
In fact, if you go to pvp everyone will be using max level gear by default (your level gets bumped to 80, all your skills are unlocked, and you can customize your equipment with what a level 80 would wear). The rarity in items will be purely aesthetic, and believe me, people will pay a LOT of money for rarer skins, even if they don't offer any stat bonuses over normal gear.
A-net wants to make GW2 PvP an eSports game, so for that balance and accessibilty is key. The game, and pvp especially, will be 100% skill based, since gear is completely normalized.
I'll probably buy TERA and sub for at least 1 month, since the game looks pretty fun to play through at least once with a couple of different characters.
Didn't say GW2 is pay2win, i said most F2P games are. And yes i play LoL so i know how much money people spend on skins. Like i said GW2 going to be mainly funded by its cash shop, doesn't mean its pay2win.
If GW2 can go E-Sport Tera would have much better chance, the combat in Tera itself is more skill based than GW2. Only thing is GW2 have more balance gear system which can easly be fixed by having default set for battle.
Each of the game has its up and downs, and GW2 is not 100% skilled based, i seen the videos, range class get lock on attack thats pretty much kicks skill in the shin when you ranged attack hom on you. GW2 is a more polish verison of the traditional tab target system, its much more smooth and free and instead of tab target its auto target or you click if you choice. Just because your given the opinion of using skill w/o a target doesn't mean you don't need that lock on more than half the time. While GW2 does require skill in to a degree i don't think it will go E-Sport, i doubt Tera will either. Cloestest mmorpg i see going e-sport is grand chase, that game now is pure skill based because a lvl 1 naked will rhape a capped with bast cash gear character if the player is skilled. And its oo so fun watching that lol.
GW2's 5v5 PvP was designed for e-sport from the ground up though. GW1 had a lot of official tournaments with a decent amount of prize money. They had the whole tournament infrastructure build into the game. GW2 will probably be the same, with even more focus on it. There will be replay and live streaming features built into the game just for those purposes.
TERA doesn't seem to have any intention of trying to make the PvP into the e-sport spotlight, so unless the devs really try to push it, it's probably not going to take off.
GW2's 5v5 PvP was designed for e-sport from the ground up though. GW1 had a lot of official tournaments with a decent amount of prize money. They had the whole tournament infrastructure build into the game. GW2 will probably be the same, with even more focus on it. There will be replay and live streaming features built into the game just for those purposes.
TERA doesn't seem to have any intention of trying to make the PvP into the e-sport spotlight, so unless the devs really try to push it, it's probably not going to take off.
Might be build toward a E-Sport but i doubt how it fits as a E-Sport. Skill wise i don't see much difference in there beside WoW but everyone has same gear and stats. I can see how its build toward E-Sport but i can't see the skill it require relate to lvl of E-Sport. Thats just my opinion could be totaly wrong we will see. And yes Tera isn't building toward it and unless player really push for it probably not. However i will say the combat Tera has fits a E-Sport much better. Maybe GW2 PvP design combat with Tera combat be the best E-Sport model for a mmorpg E-Sport. who knows.
Just please, STOP with the "TERA is AMAZING, and will win a duel with GW2 every time!" threads. I don't like GW2 any differently than I like TERA, and in fact I've got PLENTY of criticism for GW2 as well. However, this type of self-denial hype will only trick other people into biased hype.
lol dont make me laugh. there's nothing to criticize when it comes to GW2. nothing. ANet has delivered on every promise, the game is still only in closed beta, and is pretty much flawless and complete. GW2 has moved beyond "hype" a long time ago for this reason; it is now fact because all the promises have been successfully demonstrated to the public, WvW being the last.
it revolutionizes the genre in just about every way, except for crafting and avatar customization to an extent. it doesnt really get better than GW2. if you're criticizing it, you're pretty much grasping at straws, being a troll and a hater, or trying to get attention. it's the next gen MMO everyone has been waiting for.
but yeah, i fully agree about TERA. it didnt live up to the hype. unlike GW2.
Just please, STOP with the "TERA is AMAZING, and will win a duel with GW2 every time!" threads. I don't like GW2 any differently than I like TERA, and in fact I've got PLENTY of criticism for GW2 as well. However, this type of self-denial hype will only trick other people into biased hype.
lol dont make me laugh. there's nothing to criticize when it comes to GW2. nothing. ANet has delivered on every promise, the game is still only in closed beta, and is pretty much flawless and complete. GW2 has moved beyond "hype" a long time ago for this reason; it is now fact because all the promises have been successfully demonstrated to the public, WvW being the last.
it revolutionizes the genre in just about every way, except for crafting and avatar customization to an extent. it doesnt really get better than GW2. if you're criticizing it, you're pretty much grasping at straws, being a troll and a hater, or trying to get attention. it's the next gen MMO everyone has been waiting for.
but yeah, i fully agree about TERA. it didnt live up to the hype. unlike GW2.
No it doesn't revoluationize the genre in every way, the only thing it revolutionized is DE, which rift had it too but GW polished it up much better.
And that list line is just plain wrong, first of all Blue Hole promised Tera will be action combat, thats the only thing they promised and they deliever it idk how thats not like ANet in delivering their promise. Also no one beside press has even play GW2, how the fck do you guys know GW2 will live up to the hype if no one play it? And trust me with the retardly high standard you guys have for it i feel bad for ANet.
and that second paragraph shows your a pretty much GW2 fanboy to the max and pretty much everything you say has no real value coz your like one of those religious nuts.
Well there are quite a few reasons. But as far as "P2P Fantasy MMORPG" structured as theme parks, they usually fail a couple of years after they launch. They usually end up going F2P or use a hybrid model 2-3 years after initial release.
Compare MMORPG games from what I consider the "Golden Era" from 1996-2003. A good portion of those AAA MMORPG games were able to release anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen or more expansion packs. Look at the games released from 2005-present. Most of them can barely release more than 2 expansion packs. They also don't last anywhere near as the old games when it comes to holding an established P2P model.
But then again there weren't 550 or so MMORPG games back in the day. The genre is riddled with fantasy-styled games that it seems endless. Most of them follow the typical "Theme Park" methodology that once the honeymoon is over you have many folks leaving with the feeling of been-there-done-that. This is why many of these newer games are labeled as a "3-monther" or a "6-monther."
It may be true some of these games do offer 1 or potentially 2 new things to the MMO table (or at least features that are very uncommon) with other areas finely tuned with a twist. But for the most part it is more of the same old same old. There is nothing wrong with following this type of formula but many get bored sooner rather than later.
Topple with that, back in the day companies made their MMORPG games quite time consuming and/or challenging. It would take months on end or up to over a year to max out a character on level: let alone gear. Nowadays companies go more for the casual gamer with PR talk about handing out "difficult" encounters to the more hardcore crowd (which is usually not the case hence the PR talk). Games from 1996-2003 were, for the most part, never intended for the casual crowd.
Take FFXI (Vanilla) for example. Tell me you could solo to cap back in the day without a party after level 10 at a good pace (and don't include Beast Master). Games nowadays (99% of the content) is extremely easy to the point that people max out their characters and gear within 2 months or less. Level cap can be reached within 2 weeks or less in many instances.
Of course this is the tip of the iceberg. A successful launch/release is extremely important as well. I can only count 2 MMORPG games from 2003-present that had a history of a bad or mediocre launch/release that currently has an established player base and maintains firmly its P2P model. Very few can make a comeback. Eve Online is a perfect example. It had a pretty rocky start and it now has over 15 mini/major expansions. So it is possible but extremely difficult to have a game succeed if the initial launch/release is bad.
Games nowadays need to get out of the gate with all cylinders running at top speed to have a chance. Even games that had a past history whether through movies/past console titles/past MMO titles/etc. which technically have some breathing room in today's market, end up somehow messing up in several or many key areas. Look at FFXIV and SWTOR.
I am definitely going to enjoy TERA since I already played it during J-TERA. But games like TERA Online, Blade & Soul, and Phantasy Star Online 2 seem to fall into the 3-monther or 6-monther. I see the honeymoon is going to be wonderful, but I think many folks will end up leaving in less than a year because of the been-there-done-that feeling. Sure each of those MMOs do bring 1 or 2 new major things (relatively) to the table but not much else.
The only 2 games that I feel that "may" have a longevity close to the games from the "Golden Era" are Guild Wars 2 and to a lesser extent maybe, just maybe Archeage due to it being a sandbox (extremely rare to see these made these days) and one that is being properly funded. If worst case scenario happens and all those games end up "failing" (when I mean failing I don't mean what the diehard fans think are acceptable numbers nor if the game will shut down: what I mean is can it maintain a healthy player base to sustain its P2P model for years to come) then 2012-2013-2014 is going to look pretty grim for P2P models in the vast sea of F2P models which is becoming the norm these days.
Oh and trust me graphics are important, but they are definitely not the end all be all to make a game successful (although it doesn't hurt). Also, indie/small/mid-sized companies can survive with 2 or 4 or 6 servers open. But with large companies that have teams making up 200 or 300 or more; then in those cases those few numbers of servers will not suffice. If they want to keep the P2P model for several years, they need a nice size player base and one that will stick with the product in the years to come.
Comments
I was basically stating GW2 PvP is e-sport because everyone is supposed to be almost equal and gear doesn't matter at all apparently, also you can "roll".
roll as in use roll skill lol? Also i don't think equal mean e-sport, i mean auto target in the game pretty much kill any chance of e-sport. All skill go out the window when your attacks hom.
GW2's 5v5 PvP was designed for e-sport from the ground up though. GW1 had a lot of official tournaments with a decent amount of prize money. They had the whole tournament infrastructure build into the game. GW2 will probably be the same, with even more focus on it. There will be replay and live streaming features built into the game just for those purposes.
TERA doesn't seem to have any intention of trying to make the PvP into the e-sport spotlight, so unless the devs really try to push it, it's probably not going to take off.
Might be build toward a E-Sport but i doubt how it fits as a E-Sport. Skill wise i don't see much difference in there beside WoW but everyone has same gear and stats. I can see how its build toward E-Sport but i can't see the skill it require relate to lvl of E-Sport. Thats just my opinion could be totaly wrong we will see. And yes Tera isn't building toward it and unless player really push for it probably not. However i will say the combat Tera has fits a E-Sport much better. Maybe GW2 PvP design combat with Tera combat be the best E-Sport model for a mmorpg E-Sport. who knows.
lol dont make me laugh. there's nothing to criticize when it comes to GW2. nothing. ANet has delivered on every promise, the game is still only in closed beta, and is pretty much flawless and complete. GW2 has moved beyond "hype" a long time ago for this reason; it is now fact because all the promises have been successfully demonstrated to the public, WvW being the last.
it revolutionizes the genre in just about every way, except for crafting and avatar customization to an extent. it doesnt really get better than GW2. if you're criticizing it, you're pretty much grasping at straws, being a troll and a hater, or trying to get attention. it's the next gen MMO everyone has been waiting for.
but yeah, i fully agree about TERA. it didnt live up to the hype. unlike GW2.
No it doesn't revoluationize the genre in every way, the only thing it revolutionized is DE, which rift had it too but GW polished it up much better.
And that list line is just plain wrong, first of all Blue Hole promised Tera will be action combat, thats the only thing they promised and they deliever it idk how thats not like ANet in delivering their promise. Also no one beside press has even play GW2, how the fck do you guys know GW2 will live up to the hype if no one play it? And trust me with the retardly high standard you guys have for it i feel bad for ANet.
and that second paragraph shows your a pretty much GW2 fanboy to the max and pretty much everything you say has no real value coz your like one of those religious nuts.
Well there are quite a few reasons. But as far as "P2P Fantasy MMORPG" structured as theme parks, they usually fail a couple of years after they launch. They usually end up going F2P or use a hybrid model 2-3 years after initial release.
Compare MMORPG games from what I consider the "Golden Era" from 1996-2003. A good portion of those AAA MMORPG games were able to release anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen or more expansion packs. Look at the games released from 2005-present. Most of them can barely release more than 2 expansion packs. They also don't last anywhere near as the old games when it comes to holding an established P2P model.
But then again there weren't 550 or so MMORPG games back in the day. The genre is riddled with fantasy-styled games that it seems endless. Most of them follow the typical "Theme Park" methodology that once the honeymoon is over you have many folks leaving with the feeling of been-there-done-that. This is why many of these newer games are labeled as a "3-monther" or a "6-monther."
It may be true some of these games do offer 1 or potentially 2 new things to the MMO table (or at least features that are very uncommon) with other areas finely tuned with a twist. But for the most part it is more of the same old same old. There is nothing wrong with following this type of formula but many get bored sooner rather than later.
Topple with that, back in the day companies made their MMORPG games quite time consuming and/or challenging. It would take months on end or up to over a year to max out a character on level: let alone gear. Nowadays companies go more for the casual gamer with PR talk about handing out "difficult" encounters to the more hardcore crowd (which is usually not the case hence the PR talk). Games from 1996-2003 were, for the most part, never intended for the casual crowd.
Take FFXI (Vanilla) for example. Tell me you could solo to cap back in the day without a party after level 10 at a good pace (and don't include Beast Master). Games nowadays (99% of the content) is extremely easy to the point that people max out their characters and gear within 2 months or less. Level cap can be reached within 2 weeks or less in many instances.
Of course this is the tip of the iceberg. A successful launch/release is extremely important as well. I can only count 2 MMORPG games from 2003-present that had a history of a bad or mediocre launch/release that currently has an established player base and maintains firmly its P2P model. Very few can make a comeback. Eve Online is a perfect example. It had a pretty rocky start and it now has over 15 mini/major expansions. So it is possible but extremely difficult to have a game succeed if the initial launch/release is bad.
Games nowadays need to get out of the gate with all cylinders running at top speed to have a chance. Even games that had a past history whether through movies/past console titles/past MMO titles/etc. which technically have some breathing room in today's market, end up somehow messing up in several or many key areas. Look at FFXIV and SWTOR.
I am definitely going to enjoy TERA since I already played it during J-TERA. But games like TERA Online, Blade & Soul, and Phantasy Star Online 2 seem to fall into the 3-monther or 6-monther. I see the honeymoon is going to be wonderful, but I think many folks will end up leaving in less than a year because of the been-there-done-that feeling. Sure each of those MMOs do bring 1 or 2 new major things (relatively) to the table but not much else.
The only 2 games that I feel that "may" have a longevity close to the games from the "Golden Era" are Guild Wars 2 and to a lesser extent maybe, just maybe Archeage due to it being a sandbox (extremely rare to see these made these days) and one that is being properly funded. If worst case scenario happens and all those games end up "failing" (when I mean failing I don't mean what the diehard fans think are acceptable numbers nor if the game will shut down: what I mean is can it maintain a healthy player base to sustain its P2P model for years to come) then 2012-2013-2014 is going to look pretty grim for P2P models in the vast sea of F2P models which is becoming the norm these days.
Oh and trust me graphics are important, but they are definitely not the end all be all to make a game successful (although it doesn't hurt). Also, indie/small/mid-sized companies can survive with 2 or 4 or 6 servers open. But with large companies that have teams making up 200 or 300 or more; then in those cases those few numbers of servers will not suffice. If they want to keep the P2P model for several years, they need a nice size player base and one that will stick with the product in the years to come.