New Q/A Article

ScaredTurtle

So I typed in Guild Wars 2 on google news and this article came up.

I don't think it was posted on this website before so here it is:

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/guild-wars-2/1165160p1.html

romanator0

A couple of nice pieces of info:

1 new profession and 1 returning profession confirmed and no player caps on WvWvW.

Lord.Bachus

Then we have our World vs. World PvP, or WvW. This form of PvP features a massive war between three different worlds (what you might call servers or shards in other games), across four large maps. These maps are available all the time, and don't have player limits, so it's possible to have battles involving hundreds of players at a time. The game involves capturing and holding keeps and other strategic locations, and plays out like a giant strategy game where each player is an individual participant.

No player limits in WvWvW zones got just confirmed...

Reading this description it will be so much alike DAoC RvR...... i can't wayt...

DarkPony

Originally posted by romanator0

 no player caps on WvWvW.

Good.

Master10K

Though what I still don't get about the WvWvW is; will all 4 maps be available to fight in during the week and you just pick the one you feel like fighting in, or will it randomize which 1 of the maps the 3 servers will be fighting in during the week? Just gotta wait for the PvP reveal until they explain, in detail, the mechanics of WvWvW.

Unlight

Originally posted by Master10K

Though what I still don't get about the WvWvW is; will all 4 maps be available to fight in during the week and you just pick the one you feel like fighting in, or will it randomize which 1 of the maps the 3 servers will be fighting in during the week? Just gotta wait for the PvP reveal until they explain, in detail, the mechanics of WvWvW.

My guess is that all maps are available all the time and you choose which one you want to fight on.  They probably link together as well like open-world zones, actually making them one large, contiguous area. 

Trenker

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by romanator0

 no player caps on WvWvW.

Good.

That's what they said in Warhammer and fortress battles crashed the server.  Hopefully Arenanet will do much better.

I think this is the first time they have confirmed WvWvW as a 'strategy game', ie collect resources etc.  If it really is more than just capture keeps or other points then that is very distinctive.

Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by Unlight

Originally posted by Master10K

Though what I still don't get about the WvWvW is; will all 4 maps be available to fight in during the week and you just pick the one you feel like fighting in, or will it randomize which 1 of the maps the 3 servers will be fighting in during the week? Just gotta wait for the PvP reveal until they explain, in detail, the mechanics of WvWvW.

My guess is that all maps are available all the time and you choose which one you want to fight on.  They probably link together as well like open-world zones, actually making them one large, contiguous area. 

My best guess, if its like DAoC, then there will be 1 zone for every faction and a centrall zone

MumboJumbo

These 2 questions and answers almost deserve their own thread: As ever Mr. Flannum is very measured and respectful but says it how it is: Good read:

GameSpy: Here's kind of a high-concept question: A lot of MMOs are – well, how can we put it? They're World of Warcraft copycats. What is it about this genre that causes it to (largely) stagnate for years on end?

Eric Flannum: Although I'm not sure I'd go so far as saying most MMOs are "World of Warcraft copycats," I think some amount of stagnation is definitely going on in the MMO genre. Having gone through development on the first game and with what we've experienced developing Guild Wars 2, there's actually a pretty simple explanation for this: Developing an MMO is hard. I mean, really hard.



I've worked on a lot of different types of games, and while all of them present challenges, none of them compare to the difficulty of developing an MMO. You have complex network models to deal with. You have to create enough content and systems to support players getting not just 20 or 40 hours (which is a long time for most games), but hundreds or thousands of hours of play out the game. You have to deal with the community aspect of the game. The economics and balance of the game become much more involved in an environment where you have thousands of players interacting. The list goes on and on.



You don't see a lot of companies taking many chances, because developing such a complex game is not only hard, but also very expensive. Add to this the fact that you have a clear "number one" game that's making a ton of money. From that viewpoint, it becomes very easy for a company to become conservative and not take any chances that could cause the game to take longer to develop – or even risk it becoming a failure when it does launch. At ArenaNet, we see things quite differently; we think that the only way to compete in the MMO market is by taking risks. If we can deliver a fun and unique gameplay experience, then we believe we can attract many more players than we would by playing it safe.

GameSpy: To follow up on that, why do you think it's taking this genre so long to move beyond the basic "click on exclamation mark, do quest, get reward" model?

Eric Flannum: I think we've certainly seen some games dabble in alternate forms of content, but we haven't seen many of them really "go for it." What I mean by that is, you often see quests as a primary form of content with something else as a secondary form. This means that you're taking less risks, but it also means that you're structuring your entire game around a type of content that everyone else is using. With that structure in place, it's very hard to break away from many of the same conventions that those other games use... and so you run the risk of having your game feel very similar to other quest-based games.



This all stems from MMO developers being very risk-averse. Once we see more games taking chances and succeeding (and I certainly hope we do), I think we'll see a lot more MMOs that aren't based on standard quest systems.

Master10K

Originally posted by Trenker

That's what they said in Warhammer and fortress battles crashed the server.  Hopefully Arenanet will do much better.

I think this is the first time they have confirmed WvWvW as a 'strategy game', ie collect resources etc.  If it really is more than just capture keeps or other points then that is very distinctive.

Well at least we know that their unoptimized server & engine tech can handle over 100 players in close proximety with one another with no lag, only frame rate dips. So hopefully when the releases it'll be able to handle epic 500+ player battles without crashing & players DC'ing like WoW still does.

 

@MumjoJumbo:

Well why not create a thread about over that The Pub. Would be interesting to see what people have to say about it over there.

cali59

Originally posted by Master10K

Though what I still don't get about the WvWvW is; will all 4 maps be available to fight in during the week and you just pick the one you feel like fighting in, or will it randomize which 1 of the maps the 3 servers will be fighting in during the week? Just gotta wait for the PvP reveal until they explain, in detail, the mechanics of WvWvW.

 On the wiki it says there are 4 different battlefields one of which is picked when the worlds are matched up.

onehunerdper

No limits on W v W v W . . . that should be interesting. Hopefully they can keep up with that kinda of battle on the server, I would imagine the load on them would be massive if thousands were involved...

CookieTime

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by romanator0

 no player caps on WvWvW.

Good.

Yeah that sounds nice, but what if someone wants to capture a small keep or something with a small group of players so it would be a more personal fight? That is kinda impossible to achieve with thousands of players on one map, unless it's a HUGE place, which is hard to imagine..

jukinru

They have spoke a little about the objectives that are spread out over the map. There reason for this was to give solo, small groups and big groups something to do but I'm sure the miain point was to spread the players out enough to prevent major problems. Of course if all players decide to just rush the middle and forget the other stuff problems would arise. I guess the challenge there would be to make the objectives enjoyable and necessary to a point(as in harder to win with out them).

Unlight

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by Unlight

Originally posted by Master10K

Though what I still don't get about the WvWvW is; will all 4 maps be available to fight in during the week and you just pick the one you feel like fighting in, or will it randomize which 1 of the maps the 3 servers will be fighting in during the week? Just gotta wait for the PvP reveal until they explain, in detail, the mechanics of WvWvW.

My guess is that all maps are available all the time and you choose which one you want to fight on.  They probably link together as well like open-world zones, actually making them one large, contiguous area. 

My best guess, if its like DAoC, then there will be 1 zone for every faction and a centrall zone

Cali59 pointed out that the wiki states that a single map is chosen at the beginning of the week to host the battle between all three worlds.  But I think your suggestion sounds better.  Although the map randomization might add a bit to the longevity.

RameiArashi

Eric Flannum: The henchman/hero system in Guild Wars is certainly one of the coolest things about the game, but it just didn't fit with what we were trying to accomplish in Guild Wars 2.

I disagree, it is not the coolest thing about GW1, its the weakest thing and expanding heroes to 7 in a party was a bad mistake.   They say the want people playing together in GW2 but they made it so people won't play together in GW1. Makes no sense to me.

Unlight

Originally posted by RameiArashi

Eric Flannum: The henchman/hero system in Guild Wars is certainly one of the coolest things about the game, but it just didn't fit with what we were trying to accomplish in Guild Wars 2.

I disagree, it is not the coolest thing about GW1, its the weakest thing and expanding heroes to 7 in a party was a bad mistake.   They say the want people playing together in GW2 but they made it so people won't play together in GW1. Makes no sense to me.

If people *want* to play together, they will.  If they don't want to play together, or if there are only two or three people available, heroes/henchies are an option

Giving people a choice is a good thing.  I'll never understand why some people are so averse to it.

Shoju

Originally posted by RameiArashi

They say the want people playing together in GW2 but they made it so people won't play together in GW1. Makes no sense to me.

It was more than likely a pre-emptive move for when GW2 launches and it may be difficult for those still playing GW1 to field a full group of live players.  So in that respect it was a good move by ANet to implement the 7 hero groups.

cali59

Originally posted by RameiArashi

Eric Flannum: The henchman/hero system in Guild Wars is certainly one of the coolest things about the game, but it just didn't fit with what we were trying to accomplish in Guild Wars 2.

I disagree, it is not the coolest thing about GW1, its the weakest thing and expanding heroes to 7 in a party was a bad mistake.   They say the want people playing together in GW2 but they made it so people won't play together in GW1. Makes no sense to me.

 It makes sense to me.  GW1 didn't have a persistent world.  Henchmen/heroes make a lot of sense there.  My friend and I were so tired of all the drama in WoW that the henchmen were one of the reasons we bought GW.

GW2 on the other hand, part of their vision is to bring people together, to knock down all the barriers that keep people from interacting (soloable quests replaced by dynamic events, among others).  They want players to interact with other players, whether it be formally or informally.  Henchmen wouldn't fit here and that's why they're out. 

If anything, I think we should be giving ArenaNet props for thinking that something is a cool idea but still having the insight to realize they need to cut it to make a better game.

drumchannell

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by Master10K

Though what I still don't get about the WvWvW is; will all 4 maps be available to fight in during the week and you just pick the one you feel like fighting in, or will it randomize which 1 of the maps the 3 servers will be fighting in during the week? Just gotta wait for the PvP reveal until they explain, in detail, the mechanics of WvWvW.

 On the wiki it says there are 4 different battlefields one of which is picked when the worlds are matched up.

As Eric said, all 4 maps are available all the time.

jukinru

As I understand it there are 4 different battlefields that 1 will be chosen from(think most fps multi player here) in a given battlefield there will be 1 starting zone for each server with a centralized zone that connects them.

Roybe

Originally posted by RameiArashi

Eric Flannum: The henchman/hero system in Guild Wars is certainly one of the coolest things about the game, but it just didn't fit with what we were trying to accomplish in Guild Wars 2.

I disagree, it is not the coolest thing about GW1, its the weakest thing and expanding heroes to 7 in a party was a bad mistake.   They say the want people playing together in GW2 but they made it so people won't play together in GW1. Makes no sense to me.

1) They have to have an overlap time for new players to GW1 to learn to play with heroes from the long time players so that,

2) When the population thins drastically when GW2 opens, GW1 remains viable for people to come back to.  It will be almost impossible to create well balanced groups with limited populations.

gessekai332

Originally posted by romanator0

A couple of nice pieces of info:

no player caps on WvWvW.

Wow.... lol.

cali59

Originally posted by drumchannell

Originally posted by cali59

Originally posted by Master10K

Though what I still don't get about the WvWvW is; will all 4 maps be available to fight in during the week and you just pick the one you feel like fighting in, or will it randomize which 1 of the maps the 3 servers will be fighting in during the week? Just gotta wait for the PvP reveal until they explain, in detail, the mechanics of WvWvW.

 On the wiki it says there are 4 different battlefields one of which is picked when the worlds are matched up.

As Eric said, all 4 maps are available all the time.

 I went to the english translation of the german article that the wiki is referencing, and in there the quote is

Peters: Sure, the idea is to call all worlds (that is servers) once a week to a large battle. The time interval might still change. For three servers at a time one area will be generated - right now we got four different giant battlefields - in which you fight over strategic points like fortresses, watch towers and sawmills.

 

Eric says

Then we have our World vs. World PvP, or WvW. This form of PvP features a massive war between three different worlds (what you might call servers or shards in other games), across four large maps. These maps are available all the time, and don't have player limits, so it's possible to have battles involving hundreds of players at a time. The game involves capturing and holding keeps and other strategic locations, and plays out like a giant strategy game where each player is an individual participant.

I don't know.  Either Eric misspoke and meant to say something like "world pvp is available all the time" instead of "maps are available", or they changed their plan, or Eric and Jon need to fight it out.

MumboJumbo

Sure it's: WvWvW:

1. 3 Servers are ranked to fight each other

2. Choice from 4 maps: Random selection of 1 map for the 3 servers matched up in 1.

3. Each map is expected to be divided into 3 "home" areas and 1 connecting area that starts off neutral. Maps vary by theme/features obviously.

4. Time Duration of World PvP is approximately 1 week... this is still subject to change/modifaction.

5. Repeat in multiples of 3 for the other servers...

 

6. Features include RTS stuff: mines, supply-lines and keeps etc...

jukinru

Yep that's how I see it MumboJumbo. I think what is causing the confusion is one guys says 4 giant battlefields to fight over and the other guys says 4 large maps.  So they are either talking about the same 4 maps or its as mumbo and I have said. 1 battlefield chosen from 4 kinds at the begining of the week with each battlefield made up of 4 zones.

 

Edit: I am personaly hoping for 4 battlefields that have a home zone for each server and one middle ground. This means you won't be fighting over the same maps every week.