It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I have high hopes for GW2. Time will tell of course.
I'm an old timer from several other MMOs such as AC2, WoW, War, LOTRO, EVE, AoC, RoM, Rift. Like anyone else I have my own likes and dislikes, reasons I reached "thresh hold" with the other games and left. In EvE's case it wasn't that I disliked the game even, they've done a superb job on EvE.
I started playing the original Guild Wars, and expansions, in a move out of Rift in prep for GW2. Get some Hall of Monument achieves set so I can get some stuff with it in GW2, etc.
At first it's disappointing, doesn't feel smooth with their overdone landscape mazing, some rough edges in the game. Of course the original GW, NIghtfall, and Factions expacks are several years old, so what should I expect.
Then I got out of the starter instance, actually started learning the game more. I started having a good time, was engaged, found much of the gear artwork stellar, a community that's actually still around even if not millions of subscribers and who knew how to put a sentence together in chat.
I found several functional abilities in the game that I thought very neat, more indicative of "evolution" artifacts than I've seen in some recent releases.
"Theme Park" versus "Sandbox" I'm coming to believe are basically misunderstood artifacts. What people believe is these are game-defining Titles they like to throw around to make themselves sound like a gaming critic xtreme. Le Expert. I've come to the conclusion they are simply descriptors for two "metabolic" attributes of the body of a game, if you will, and will vary in proportion in a game based on how that game was designed.
GW 2 I'm hoping will be great because I see lots of signs of it in GW now, even with some rough edges in it.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Originally posted by Dredphyre Originally posted by InFaVilla Originally posted by Dredphyre GW2 will b teh Messiah of MMOs. Repent nao!
Does that mean we have to cancel all our current subscriptions and preorder GW2?
Indeed. Not only that, brother, the features that you've panned in other MMOs are now sancrosanct:
Well, this is for sure best post here. Like you said --now is everything fine and great Now fanboys don't have any problem with quest animations and with rest of things. Well said, well said
It could and should revolutionize mmo industry. I hope it will deliver everything they say and more.
Originally posted by Dredphyre Originally posted by InFaVilla Originally posted by Dredphyre GW2 will b teh Messiah of MMOs. Repent nao!
Agree, everytime I start to get on the hype train for this game I take a deep breath and remember how many times I've been run over by that hype train and left utterly disappointed. There are some fun sounding features, but then there are others which I often would consider game breaking: your points 2, 4, and 5 above to me are extremely disappointing.
2) Loading screens completely dash any kind of immersion, and are either exploitable or you will get the message "Sorry cannot leave zone while in combat" which is equally bad
4) No real ingrained PVP, only via e-sport instances or the prefab realm vs realm vs realm instance. E-sport instances are yawntastic, while there is some hope for the realm vs realm vs realm, but even if successful does not change the fact that all the PVE is completely isolated into carebare PVE only servers. This to me is utterly gamebreaking and may be enough for me to pass on this game.
5) Tokens for loot is so uninspiring and completely takes away the joy of finding that elusive loot. Sure, some may say striving to find a rare drop is "tedious" but I liken it to a slot machine. Every pull you get that little rush of anticipation, will I finally get that uber sword of kick ass this time? But instead it will be "Bueler? Bueler? Another token. Bueler?"
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Don't believe the hype..."
Hahahah I almost quoted Chuck D yesterday....
allthese points are pretty good, most of all I am excited for a game with changes in it. WoW Raids got old for me which is why I stopped playing, the battlegrounds were okay but eventually became a grind.
The lousy part about the Lich King Warzone was that it was timed. so if you only had a few minutes to play and a battle was not going on....you were out of luck.
I always hated that.
What I always find interesting, is that when people attempt to understand what Guild Wars 2 is, they almost never remember that the game at its core is Guild Wars.
Originally posted by Dredphyre Indeed. Not only that, brother, the features that you've panned in other MMOs are now sancrosanct: Made for Consoles is okay now Loading screens are fine too Story is now okay to have Launcing without PvP servers is fine Tokens for loot instead of actual loot = win I could go on.
1. If you actually read sites other then this one, you would know that most of the GW2 fanbase actually hates the idea of consoles.
2. Can't argue with this, people suddenly seem to be ok with having portals when previously they didn't. Though we still need to see how much we will see those portals afterall.
3. The reason people find story in this game okay, is because it's just a bonus. An extra feature for those who want to do it. Whereas in SWTOR it was basically the whole game built around it.
4. How would PvP servers make sense in this game? How would they be different then normal servers?
5. Only dungeons drop tokens (and only the last boss i think), and they still drop normal loot aswell. I don't know how it works in SWTOR, but you'll only need 1 token per armor piece.
Come up with better reasons if you want to bring the community down
Everyone keeps worrying about being disappointed by hype. GW2 has not giving us one thing on the game until it is in their game. So if you read about it it is there, follow up to the Dev and site to ensure it. All the excitement at this point is confirming of media who just had their weekend closed event and they are hyped they enjoyed it. Some new hype will soon be out there as they pick and we have public open beta. I was clicking the links yesterday watching all the diffrent sites in game player videos. I was thrilled when I got my invite in email yesterday afternoon to go to sign up for a closed beta event. Now I will be banging my head wondering if I will get in. The PvP/PVE I saw yesterday displayed all that I had read about, and I am so looking forward to a look and the release even more now.
Look for the Rose with the Thorn.
Originally posted by smh_alot Originally posted by Phelcher Originally posted by smh_alot Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by smh_alot Ok, I get the excitement of the article writer, but I don't get the sandbox comparison. In what way does GW2 use sandbox specific elements?? Now Arche Age, THAT I can understand that people describe it as a themepark/sandbox hybrid, with sandbox features like building your own houses, towns, keeps and ships and such. But GW2, nope, not really: best description imo would be themepark 2.0 or next-gen themepark. But still very solidly in the themepark or dev content driven branch of things.
From what I gather - GW2 feels a lot like a Skyrim kind of sandbox.. sure, there are quests and some guidance and a main plot line, but you can also just pick a direction and wander out and find all kinds of fun stuff to do, that is actually worth while.
Exploration + content.
It is upsetting when somone is using the word "Sandbox" and doesn't even know the definition (within contex), or even understand the term (within actual use, in game).
The definition of "Sandbox" has not changed, only the technology allowing it's use, has changed. It is now alot easier to build Sandbox games, BECAUSE building an Open World is much, much, easier now given the technology of the day.
Sandbox games are predicated on the fact they have 360 degree content.
Everquest back in March 16th 1999 was/is considered a Sandbox game. There was no funneling of content, mulitple ways to leave a city and multi paths & direction to head out in... given the technology @ the time. Zone walls were used, but the zones were all outward content.
When a game is predicated on inferior server technology... and the business decision to funnel content and "theme" using zones/instances due to server cost... THEN, that game becomes themepark, becausde now the developers (limited by their choice/cost of server structure) have to develop eye catching rifts/public quests, etc.. so that you as a inhabitant of their world MUST spend time looking at what the Developers specifically deveoped for you, instead of heading off in THAT direction & exploring.
Just because a Sandbox has side shows, that some people like, or enjoy doesn't make it a "themepark". Anything can have "themepark" like qualities.. only sandboxes have sandbox qualities about them.
What a sandbox is, is clearly defined by what liberties you have within the game.
Those liberties are DIRECTLY related to the TYPE of SERVER the game is being played on. In the past (EQ) was loosely a sandbox, even though by todays standards EQ is a themepark, when it was released it was a sandbox. It later turned into more of a themepark design, because every expansion was predicated on cost and not stressing the server, so more zones & instances were added over the 12 years... thus making it a themepark.
UO had one ZONE... and the game world was super... super small. but it was 100% sandbox from the ground up.
Understand, there are 2 elements when discussing "sandbox".
Is the game world a sandbox and is the gameplay sandbox..? You can easily have a sandbox, that has gameplay like a themepark, but that doesn't make the whole game a themepark! It is just presented in a way, that the developers thought would save them alot of money and could skimp by adding a few "themepark" features in their sand, to help add value to their game, or lure in children who need a path to follow.
Now, given todays technologies and the character hooks allowed (abilities/liberties given) today, it may be hard for an average joe to clearly define a Sandbox game.
You can have an open world design, that you cannot swim under water.. it would still be a Sandbox game, but highly restricted movement. You cannot say, because you cannot swim under water that the game is now "themepark"... that is totally dependant upon the actual game world, not the mechanics within that game world.
It does cost Millions (upfront) and it's at least 3x as much, to make a Sandbox game, because the server structure to support open worlds cost ALOT of money. So YES, "themeparks" are cheaper to make... that is why you've seen so many since Vanguard.
Lastly, the term "sandbox style" means like a sandbox, but not!
Nobody is talking about "sandbox style features".. you either have a sandbox open game world, or you don't. Doesn't even matter if your whole world is 100% pure sandbox and everything else is "themepark"....! <-- then you'd just have a Sandbox game that sucked, or nobody liked, or catered to a specific crowd.
So, even though a Sandbox may be filled with "themes", it is still a Sandbox... just one that many people would not want to play in. Again... It does not matter if the game has "themepark" features.. if it is based on Open World design, then the game is a sandbox.
The term Sandbox directly & indirectly relates back to server design. I can tell you that EQ Next will be a sandbox without knowing anything more than it uses SOE's new Forge Light engine. Thus Open world design, thus Sandbox!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
GW2 ~is~ going to revolutionize the genre. You guys seem to think by being revolutionary means it's going to please everyone and take 100% of the playerbase away from every game out there. Being the best is not the same as being different.
GW2 only needs to be a moderate success to prove that new payment options and new gameplay styles are possible. Companies have stuck with the safe, WoW-established gaming because it was all about turning a profit, and less about making a decent game. If you need proof, read the dev interviews for games like Rift and SWTOR, they openly admit it. They know it works, they didn't see a need to try something new, they just wanted their own version so they could milk the playerbase as well.
GW2 will be at the very least moderately successful, and that's why it will be revolutionary. It's going to remind game developers that it's okay to think outside the box, and it's going to remind them that, if your fan base loves you, they will support you and will not let you drown, sub fee be damned.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Guild Wars 2 heralds the much needed dawn of a new age.
While I am really looking forward to the game, is the bathing yourself in GW2 butter just a bit excessive?
Now hey, it might not be. This might indeed be that damn good. I just hope if thats the conclusion, you guys are being pretty strict with the editing and vetting process.
The letdown that was TOR still burns fresh in my mind.
That being said, hopefully more companies can bring forth innovations. The genre really has gotten freakin stale.
Originally posted by gainesvilleg Originally posted by Dredphyre Originally posted by InFaVilla Originally posted by Dredphyre GW2 will b teh Messiah of MMOs. Repent nao!
You guys should save your etherial ink.
I mean, you're right, and add in the instanced territories per player "story", a veritable instanced history, to make it worse.
But my initial point is, you know, some few will love it, and the rest are largely the same people who were taken in by the hype multiple times already and still will fall for it again.
Once upon a time....
Originally posted by EvilGeek Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by raistlinm Originally posted by BadSpock From what I gather - GW2 feels a lot like a Skyrim kind of sandbox.. sure, there are quests and some guidance and a main plot line, but you can also just pick a direction and wander out and find all kinds of fun stuff to do, that is actually worth while. Exploration + content.
Sandbox elements are hard to find in GW2 but it certainly gives back that notion of freedom in a theme park setting, it's a theme park without rails is my take on it,
And I honestly think this, if GW2 works, is what is going to be so exciting. Everything being on rails is what is making the MMO genre stale. Everyone found it most offensive when TOR in space was so blatantly on rails. But really, it just did explicitly what most MMO's have been doing behind the scenes for the past 10 years. Play your toon only one way, use only these skills, go to only these areas
It seems with GW2, it is "go here, but what you do to get there is up to you." "Do quests, but the best quests will rely on you seeking them out." Play your toon whatever way your heart desires, stop limiting yourself to the tank/dps/heal mode of the standard RPG.
Now this might not work. But it's once again refreshing to see someone make a serious stab at saying "you know what, we are tired of everyone falling in line and doing what the system says. So we are looking to innovate, heck, we might even start a system of our own if we get our way."
Originally posted by Nikkita Originally posted by Master10K Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by EvilGeek
Sandbox elements are hard to find in GW2 but it certainly gives back that notion of freedom in a theme park setting, it's a theme park without rails is my take on it, it's a massive difference unto itself from what we've had from releases over the past four or five years. Those rails seem to have got tighter as the genre moved on (on not forward). As an explorer I'm really hyped by this new freedom, I won't have to go from quest giver to quest giver, from hub to hub, instead the world is my oyster, far closer to a virtual world feel than we've seen for a long time.
What really struck me from playing the demo was the fluidity of play or how organic it felt, sentiments echoed by a lot of the reviews we've had since the press beta. Tyria feels like a living breathing world because of this, the game became less and the world became more (if you get what I mean) and I was believing the world, my place in it and having crap loads of fun. Fun and accessible being the other words that hit strongly for me.
I like it.
Especially this line - "certainly gives back that notion of freedom in a theme park setting, it's a theme park without rails is my take on it"
That's my take on it aswell. No other Themepark MMORPG gives players as much freedom as Guild Wars 2. From all the the press beta footage I've seen, they all seem to do something different right after the tutorial...
In other themepark MMOS too once out of tutorial area players can go in any direction they like and start questing, exploring, PVP, crafting or whatever else they enjoy. Tera being the latest example i am sure others can come up with more examples.
To say NO other themepark MMOS offer so much freedom is a very false claim to make.
Yet is it really? For the most part, you've only got one path to level, upon a certain pre-defined quest route. Even the crafting is tied to the combat, and since the majority of the combat comes through the quest hubs, there really isn't much "freedom."
Originally posted by gainesvilleg Originally posted by Dredphyre Originally posted by InFaVilla Originally posted by Dredphyre GW2 will b teh Messiah of MMOs. Repent nao!
For me, load timers aren't killer. As someone else said, it's something you gotta roll with if you want sexy graphics. I am not big on that, but I can't get too bent out of shape about loading screens either, unless they are really excessive. (i.e. the insane amount of load screens required in TOR when you first enter, or the incredible amount of loading screens in POTBS when flipping a port)
If you put together a tight pvp squad, and you go out busting heads, you will get noticed. For the person who loves pvp, that beats any "reward" a dev squad can think of. In POTBS, we didn't need this or that. What we had was when our group showed up, you ran unless you wanted to get farmed. When i start out in pvp games, I look for those kinda groups. Learn from them, follow them, and heck, try to join em if I can, or start my own.
And also, if I read correctly, World vs World vs World will also have some pve stuff in it. With upwards of 300 people, grindmonkeys who are good at grinding will be at a premium in certain spots i'm sure. The servers that win the most will be those who can mix the two.
As far as the gear, there will be gear you get, but not the obsession over the latest OP this or that. Instead, the point is to have you focus on the combat more than the gear.
Originally posted by bobfish I'm beginning to think I'm the only one that finds GW2 combat to be disappointing, not bad, but disappointing. Because it is the least innovated system in the game. They've done so much to improve everything else in the game (bar crafting), but the combat is pretty much the same as every other MMO we've had in the last 15 years. Shame, will enjoy the game, but I know the combat is going to drive me away from it eventually.
GW2's combat is actually quite different, though it doesn't always look that way in video because of the inexperience of the players and that a lot of it has to do with how player interaction. I once made a list of ways in which GW2 combat is not like WoW's. This is what I got.
Everything except channeled abilities can be cast while movingNo auto attack (you can set any skill on your bar to autocast, and one of them will be spammable)Attacks don't need a target, they'll hit whatever gets in their wayDodging attacks and projectilesShield stance blocks projectiles from hitting you and people behind youLimited skillbarNo holy trinity, players aren't locked into one role to the exclusion of all othersSkills fit into broad categories of damage, control, or supportWeapon(s) determine half your skill bar and give different skills than other weaponsPlayers can potentially switch roles in combat (if weapon/skill choices plan for it)No ally targeted abilitiesEveryone has a self-heal ability which is the most powerful healDowned state before dying, killing an enemy rallies youDowned state gives you a new, limited skillbar to fight back withAny player can rez anyone mid combat anytime, including NPCs.Picking up an environmental weapon changes your skillbarThieves can steal environmental weapons from enemiesYou get full xp and loot for helping kill a mob whether grouped or ungroupedHundreds of cross profession combos to enhance the effect of your skills, even ungroupedMob aggro largely based on proximity, and possibly other factors depending on the type of mobNPC enemies can dodge your attacksNPC attacks may be deadlier due to ability of players to dodge and reviveNo mana/energy for any class, cooldowns limit abilitiesOnly four attributes. Power affects melee, ranged and spell damageAll professions viable at both melee and range
On top of it there's some underwater stuff as well. Both player and mob skills can change to make more sense underwater, and skills can use the Z axis like to sink your enemies. There's also underwater specific weapons and even ranger pets.
"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." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Like many of us already said nuerous times.
GW2 will not be a perfect mmo, there wil never be a perfect mmo.
There is always some things you wont like or dont find attractive.
But when you check out all the cons and pro's you cannot turn your head away and compare GW2 to any other fail promised hyped up product that came out after 2004 when WoW was launched.
WoW in 2004 also combined the best of all worlds and GW2 will take that role in 2012.
Not saying WoW is any good after TBC as i lost more and more interest in WoW.
But after WoW i havent had any serious jaw dropping moments.
I had multiple jaw dropping moments in GW2...
And i havent even played it.
Originally posted by iceman00Yet is it really? For the most part, you've only got one path to level, upon a certain pre-defined quest route. Even the crafting is tied to the combat, and since the majority of the combat comes through the quest hubs, there really isn't much "freedom."
There isn't a pre-defined quest route, there's an area safe for your level band, go off and explore and tackle the content in the way that gives you the most fun. Not only do you have choice on what content to complete in an area but you have choices on how to complete that content. Ultimately your limited to content you can handle (otherwise where's the sense of progression?) but you still have far more freedom than you get in theme parks on rails, surely you can see that ?
GW2 seems like the only game made with the clear intent to break the ice and change the genre cornerstones WoW have set up. I really really hope that their efforts will be well rewarded, so others will also try to experiment, rather than just copy the WoW formula (which is not the best MMO formula at all, WoW was successfull for many reasons - game mechanics not being first in the list). It doesn't mean the automatic success for a game though, not all the ideas might get implemented well. But come on - look at other genre markets: while the typical 3d-shooter games are still cloned - there are several exceptions in the action/shooter genre: stealth-action hitman series, GTA series, Assassin's Creed series - all the games are very successful despite breaking the genre "rules". I hope that GW2 will bring lots of fresh air into the industry, cause I personally am really tired of the WoW and clones (SWTOR was enough to keep me interested only for 1,5 months and that's because I love SW).
My biggest concern is about the PvP system - which seems to fail in most MMOs (including WoW), the most common reason being in a poor balance. Ususally there are too many classes which are impossible to balance (and such diversity have really no meaning - as there are only 3 actual roles in WoW like games) - I would prefer 3-4 classes and just a few skill tree choices, rather than 10 classes X 30 skill tree schoices, which usually leads to imbalance and players getting raged as in the endgame it becomes apparent - they've picked up the "wrong" class which sucks in PvP. Good example is SWTOR - where as an empire player you get the huttball most of the time - and in the huttball it is necessary to have either the ability to instantly jump to your target (to get to the enemy base quickly from below the bridges and have the ball passed to you) or the ability to pull the enemy (to pull the ball handler away from your base). If you don't have those - you have a very low chances of effectively working towards the objectives. A few abilities can really make the difference in the usefulness of classes in objective oriented PvP. Also in the mass-world PvP the ranged classes are always more useful. I hate WoW for making the ranged and melee classes! The system should be re-thinked. In early RPGs the ranged AOE abilities would be dangerous for your allies and would have large AOE radius - that really made the difference - if the enemies entered the middle range distance - you wouldn't throw your fireballs, as it will kill your mates - it really creates the opportunities to close up in mass combat, but in the WoW style MMOs you just spam the AOE/long range DPS in mass PvP and melee classes have no chance to close up with you. So it becomes possible to engage in clse combat only by pulling enemies, which is totally stupid since the player being pulled can't acually defend, as he is pulled instantly. All the teleport type abilities - are just a lame fix for the initially wrong idea of making ranged and close combat classes.
What's the targetting paradigm like? I see one player say spells/attacks hit whatever gets in the way?
Tab-targetting: Does it do a (dumb) blind round robin of everything within 360 degrees around you, or something more natural to the human animal like cycling targets in your frontal conal view starting closest moving out?
Taking another players target: Can you do this? Select "Bob" from your party and hit "F" to take his target?
Generally speaking, one of the attributes I've found in games that directly contributes or not to combat feeling "smooth and greasy" or "clunky" is the act of taking or swapping of targets. If done correctly it happens very rapidly, in an eyeblink, in an intuitive fashion.
Which is how it happens with us as human animals, a quick mental decision based on what we see in front of us, whether near or far.
On paper(from what I've read) the game sounds too good to be true.I have been disappointed so amny times...I've developed a wait and see attitude.And so...I wait.
And mark time playing DAOC. and beta test another "up and commer".
Originally posted by AcmeGamer I dont really consider it a new breed of mmo-rpg. I think it is doing some things right and I think most will find it a very fun experience, including myself. I would like to see a better crafting system, I am a bit concerned about that. Also I am hoping for a good economcs system as well, who knows if that one will happen. On the comments about skill > gear. While I agree that it is nice to see skill being more important then gear. I tend to have some issues with that, for me I think both are important. You can have all the skill in the world but if you are in a T-55 at 2k range at night and I am in a M1 Abrams and I even have the most basic of how to operate said M1 Abrams, you are indeed toast. Or to put it more into a medieval fantasy setting. If I am in fully fitted articulated Habsburg plate armor, wielding a well made heater and master crafted broad sword with basic training in such gear. You on the other hand are wearing a bronze age cuirass and typical gear that Perseus might have used along with say his skill, you are still fighting at a serious disadvantage, no mattter how skillful you are. So while I do think skill should always play a role in the game play, how good your gear is should be a factor. Otherwise the game loses something for me. There is a balance basically, where you do go ahead and give up some of the advantages of better gear for game play, but you shouldnt discard it.
The problem with some of the games is that gear is all that matters. Any reality aside (as reality really just doesn't matter in games), gear in WoW and SWTOR are all that matters. Gear in GW1 didn't matter at all. Gear in UO barely mattered. A full set of GM crafted gear in UO was disadvantaged to a full set of invulnerable and vanquishing, but not so much that skill didn't play the bigger role.
I dont care if you are in a WW2 sherman vs the most modern prototype battle tank, if they are put into a game in the same field to fight, the sherman should be able to accomplish something or have an impacting purpose on the field. Now, that story can be totally different if the players arnt put into the same field but wander to the same field on thier own.
Even then, the leveling game and the end game are two different games. Once in the end game, the disparity between players shouldnt be prohibitively vast unless system exist to still allow fun for both players.
The problem only exists when gear > skill. Thats where complaints originate. Sure, sometimes gear is a huge factor, but whenever it is THE factor it is frustrating and generally looked down upon.
For the above poster, I guess this applies as well. From another column post:
[quote]AGREEING TO THE DOMAIN for Inclusion and Exclusion (in game design/mechanics anyway ):
Inclusion and Exclusion in a game IMO stems from from Player Attenuation in levels/power that affects Ability to Participate, Ability to Compete . . . with others (players).
Most MMOs follow an open-ended steep climb upward in progression, thus the problem.
Given new players, even low to almost mid-level players, are the LIFE BLOOD of any game, the criteria is present for consideration in an MMO's design model for controlling and regulating progression and power scales at "end game":
Level 1 (or, heck, say level 5 if one is just too much for some).
Specifically, as an example of the concept:
End Game gear/stats/power will equal 20x that of a Level 5. Meaning, specifically, 15 to 20 level 5's would be able to kill a capped character . . . if they were smart, and knew how to play/pvp. Health pools, mitigations, to hit, etc. would be calibrated in a way to NOT allow anyone to become invulnerable based on a stat number alone, but would always require player action and attention.
However you slice it, however you dice it, if a game is based on an open-ended power scale aimed straight up, the design guarantees zero mode of Participation between players, either against each other or in service to each other once attentuation separates players by (x) levels.
Should a level 5 be viable in an end-game instance? No. But it's all in the details. "[/quote]
That full post here: http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/6079/Towards-a-Culture-of-Inclusion.html#post