What I Personally Think GW3 should look like

[AusarViled.7106]

Those are all fair criticisms, it is a big directional change from what we have currently. Let me address some of them.

 

1) player base won’t come along:  this one is fair yet truthfully how many of the GW1 players came to play GW2?  When ever you launch a new game, it gets new eyes and new players, even a game as bad as AGS New World has found a lot of players, they only left because of the bugs. Yes the pvp community of mmos is smaller, but if GW3 did pvp properly, they would steal all those players from all MMOs.  

 

Plus I have the unpopular opinion that of the pvp community that I play GW2 for the pvp because of how someone above said, the combat system. I do not think I touched pve content on 4 of my char for over 4 years.  That is why I focused on the enemy AI as deep learned from pvp players.

 

2) GW3 won’t happen: as I said in opener, I doubt it will also, but hypothetically if it does….

 

3) the sub fee I can waive I do not care that much, my biggest issue is the gem store. The reason my idea works is that you do not need 50+ devs to work on creating content in this type of mmo. You need at max 8-9 people.  So that money goes a lot further, you do not need to monetize as hard. The purchasing of box price of 60usd would cover the cost of building the game.

 

3) i would not say it makes game like other MMOs. FF14 is entirely vertical progression, same as WoW and SWTOR.  ESO, and GW2 almost entirely horizontal. I can not think of any MMO that does both.

 

it would also be different to other MMOs as the emphasis would be on its pvp and pve combat.  If they made combat ai like I suggested, you would have infinite content as AI is procedurally generated from seeds

 

5) semantic but it called Guild Wars lol.  I never seen much guild wars in guild wars 2. A mostly I see stitch wars 2 hahaha.. 

 

 

[Omega.6801]

1 hour ago, Haishao.6851 said:

NCSoft pulled the plug on GW3 and fired the entire team who was working on it in 2019.

That's not remotely what happened or at least what has been communicated.

Also, should ANet or the team working on GW2 now make another game I'd rather it be something new instead of GW3. A new game can be a new start, can be a possibiliy to do things differently and a sure fire way to get rid of most of the "make the new thing like the old thing"-crowd. Yes, there is the risk of not landing your new franchise, but nostalgia only takes you so far and it also only works, when you keep lots of the old stuff in. So changing everything but the name looks like the least reasonable thing if you want to think about "what's next".

Also, just in case should this turn out to be yet another "WE NEED GW3 NAO!!!!"-thread, here's a "No.".

Edited January 13, 2022 by lokh.2695

[piitb.7635]

Hypothetically if GW3 was iin development, I would like to see it be a hybrid of GW1 and GW2.

 

Where it has the open world but it also has sections of the game carved out that are basically solo/coop instanced world.  Where skill hunting and multi-classing comes back.  Where you have strikes/raids but you also have missions.

 

Basically take everything awesome in both games and put it in a blender and hope it comes out to be the best iteration in the franchise

 

GW1 is such an underappreciated anderrated game that had so many design choices that were way ahead of its time.  And it was held back a little by the technology at the time.

Edited January 13, 2022 by piitb.7635

[kharmin.7683]

3 minutes ago, piitb.7635 said:

Basically take everything awesome in both games and put it in a blender and hope it comes out to be the best iteration in the franchise

How, exactly, could that possibly work?  "Everything awesome in both games" is highly subjective.  Points that you would like, others may not.

[piitb.7635]

5 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

How, exactly, could that possibly work?  "Everything awesome in both games" is highly subjective.  Points that you would like, others may not.

 

 

There are a lot of things that GW2 does incredibly well.  The open world design, group events, PvP.  Not just compared to GW1, but the entire MMO market.

 

There was also some designs in GW1 that are still amazing when you think about it.  Like class customization, some of the PVE content was fantastic., the design also led to good storytelling elements.

 

 

There are also things that didn't work so well in either game.  Keep the things that worked well, cut the things that didn't

 

 

[Crono.4197]

So you want this game to become like other MMOs and to go in a direction that 90% of the player base wouldn't want, just because we have to be "cool" like other MMOs? Most of the things you mentioned are things that will take this franchise in an entire new direction. If I wanted subscription and vertical progression, I'd be playing other MMOs. Sounds to me like you don't like the game and you're trying to force your ideals upon the community.

Guild Wars 3 should build upon what Guild Wars 1 and 2 are doing, not be an entirely new game. Again, if I wanted what you mentioned, I'd be playing another MMO. I'm playing this franchise exactly because it's easy to get into, there's no monthly subscription (never was and NEVER should be) and because I don't lose anything if I'm busy at a point in my life thanks to the horizontal progression.

And pretty sure most people that play this game are here because they love horizontal progression too and they don't want to lose all of their in level and gear every 3 months just so that "Online Chad" can feel better because he reached the new level cap in 24 hours, cleared UberMegaHardRaid in 24 hours and has the best gear and is treating people like trash because he thinks he's superior, like it happens in other vertical progression MMOs.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Crono.4197

[DeanBB.4268]

1 hour ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

Those are all fair criticisms, it is a big directional change from what we have currently. Let me address some of them.

 

1) player base won’t come along:  this one is fair yet truthfully how many of the GW1 players came to play GW2?  When ever you launch a new game, it gets new eyes and new players, even a game as bad as AGS New World has found a lot of players, they only left because of the bugs. Yes the pvp community of mmos is smaller, but if GW3 did pvp properly, they would steal all those players from all MMOs.  

 

Plus I have the unpopular opinion that of the pvp community that I play GW2 for the pvp because of how someone above said, the combat system. I do not think I touched pve content on 4 of my char for over 4 years.  That is why I focused on the enemy AI as deep learned from pvp players.

 

2) GW3 won’t happen: as I said in opener, I doubt it will also, but hypothetically if it does….

 

3) the sub fee I can waive I do not care that much, my biggest issue is the gem store. The reason my idea works is that you do not need 50+ devs to work on creating content in this type of mmo. You need at max 8-9 people.  So that money goes a lot further, you do not need to monetize as hard. The purchasing of box price of 60usd would cover the cost of building the game.

 

3) i would not say it makes game like other MMOs. FF14 is entirely vertical progression, same as WoW and SWTOR.  ESO, and GW2 almost entirely horizontal. I can not think of any MMO that does both.

 

it would also be different to other MMOs as the emphasis would be on its pvp and pve combat.  If they made combat ai like I suggested, you would have infinite content as AI is procedurally generated from seeds

 

5) semantic but it called Guild Wars lol.  I never seen much guild wars in guild wars 2. A mostly I see stitch wars 2 hahaha.. 

 

 

Genuinely curious, is there currently a successful MMO with PvP as its focus? I ask out of ignorance.

[Gibson.4036]

2 hours ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

Genuinely curious, is there currently a successful MMO with PvP as its focus? I ask out of ignorance.

I'm sure Camelot Unchained will be a breakthrough success when it launches in 2064.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Gibson.4036

[Kaitou.4623]

Mmm honestly, some people might not realize it, but the suspcription model is not for everyone, i for sure wouldnt be paying 10 dollars monthly to play an online game that probably it's going to sell you expansions and more stuff outside the game (FFXIV) 

[hgkmaxymus.9321]

Why not a VIP subscription? Some games do that. You get some store currencies (gems in our case) and maybe some boosters/gemstore skins for free. 

 

They did something like that with their Supply Drop. About 2.5k gems for a weekly box during one month. I know plenty of people who paid that for the drops.

 

They could improve that, turning it into the VIP subscription (but ofc, reduce the rewards and the price). 

 

Edit: the game would still be free, the VIP subscription would be optional. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by hgkmaxymus.9321
To clarify xD

[DeanBB.4268]

1 minute ago, hgkmaxymus.9321 said:

Why not a VIP subscription? Some games do that. You get some store currencies (gems in our case) and maybe some boosters/gemstore skins for free. 

 

They did something like that with their Supply Drop. About 2.5k gems for a weekly box during one month. I know plenty of people who paid that for the drops.

 

They could improve that, turning it into the VIP subscription (but ofc, reduce the rewards and the price). 

That depends on whether the VIP Subscription is truly optional or, in reality, required to enjoy the game. IE, locking QoL features behind it.

[kharmin.7683]

I have said this so many times in so many threads that I should have it set as a macro.

If you want a subscription model, you can do that now.  At the beginning of each month, pay Anet $15 or $20 or whatever.  You will get gems which you can then use in the store.  There is no need for GW2 to implement any subscription model.

Why would Anet decide to move to any form of subscription for a hypothetical GW3?

[Rasimir.6239]

12 minutes ago, hgkmaxymus.9321 said:

Why not a VIP subscription?

The real question is: why should they? What could they put up as vip perks that makes people want to pay for vip status, while at the same time not putting people that prefer the "buy gems/gemstore items if and when I have the spare cash and feel like it" into a spot where they feel disadvantaged?

 

The system we have in game right now allows everyone to spend as much or as little on gems/gemstore items as feels good to them. It doesn't matter if you pay 10€ each month or 120€ once a year, you always get your money's worth in gems, and you always get to actively choose what you buy with them. Even the supply drops told you exactly up-front what you would get for your gems.

 

If you introduce any kind of subscription/vip status/battle pass, you will end up with people paying without clearly knowing in advance what they get for their money/gems, and with lots of people that feel like they either overpaid for what they got in the end, or feel disadvantaged because they can't afford to pay regularly and miss out on exclusives (or even just more value for the same amount of money).

Edited January 13, 2022 by Rasimir.6239

[Dawdler.8521]

29 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Im sure Camelot Unchained will be a breakthrough success when it launches in 2064.

What do you mean? It was launched in 2014 back when it killed WvW. That's what everyone said and no one is ever wrong about kickstarters.

[Bunny.9834]

I'm not redoing this again lol. I'm sticking to GW2. 

[hgkmaxymus.9321]

19 minutes ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

The real question is: why should they? What could they put up as vip perks that makes people want to pay for vip status, while at the same time not putting people that prefer the "buy gems/gemstore items if and when I have the spare cash and feel like it" into a spot where they feel disadvantaged?

 

The system we have in game right now allows everyone to spend as much or as little on gems/gemstore items as feels good to them. It doesn't matter if you pay 10€ each month or 120€ once a year, you always get your money's worth in gems, and you always get to actively choose what you buy with them. Even the supply drops told you exactly up-front what you would get for your gems.

 

If you introduce any kind of subscription/vip status/battle pass, you will end up with people paying without clearly knowing in advance what they get for their money/gems, and with lots of people that feel like they either overpaid for what they got in the end, or feel disadvantaged because they can't afford to pay regularly and miss out on exclusives (or even just more value for the same amount of money).

It would be like the supply drop. A certain assertion of items. 

But since they are paying real money directly, the main attraction would be the gems.

The other stuff could be black lion ticket, black lion outfit voucher, whatever. 

 

The main thing would be the gems and you supporting the game. The other stuff would be treated almost like our. Our not, IDK. They would judge if they would give a discount on the gems, or it would be 1:1 to the price you paid for the subscription. Who knows. 🤷🏻‍♂️ It's just an idea. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by hgkmaxymus.9321

[Farohna.6247]

I suggest you become a dev and create your own game and name it anything but GW.  Not for me, and leaves me curious about what OP actually enjoys about the game.

[kharmin.7683]

1 hour ago, hgkmaxymus.9321 said:

It would be like the supply drop. A certain assertion of items. 

But since they are paying real money directly, the main attraction would be the gems.

The other stuff could be black lion ticket, black lion outfit voucher, whatever. 

 

The main thing would be the gems and you supporting the game. The other stuff would be treated almost like our. Our not, IDK. They would judge if they would give a discount on the gems, or it would be 1:1 to the price you paid for the subscription. Who knows. 🤷🏻‍♂️ It's just an idea. 

But players can do this right now.  Players can choose to supply Anet with RL cash for gems and then use gems to purchase everything you mention here.  They can already support the game. 

As for discount on gems, I don't know that Anet would want to.  /shrug

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

I would not play your version of GW3 and I think most of the PvE player base would feel the same. 

 

You obviously are primarily a PvP player, especially since you admit that 4 of your characters have only done PvP content. This means what you like in a MMO is the PvP, opposite of this game which is a PvE focused casual player MMO with separate PvP. 
 

Reading your suggestions for PvE gave me the distinct feeling that you played and liked New World. In that game PvP players are king and PvE players at max level have nothing to do besides gather and craft. Your post really made me think that you are sad the New World crashed and burned and you hope that GW3 could be GW3: The New World Reborn. 

[Zaoda.1653]

If there's ever a Guild Wars 3, I'd want it to look the same as it is now graphics-wise, but with some of the original Guild Wars weapon and armor skins. For example, in my opinion, the tormented shield from GW looks much bigger, better, and more detailed, than the GW2 version. I'd also like to see more serious and non-flashy/glowy/sparkly weapons.

[Redfeather.6401]

Since gw2 was completely different than gw1 and divided the fanbase and drove some away, I bet they'll do the same with gw3 just to clinch the end.

[Ashen.2907]

Many might like your description of a sandbox game compared to a theme park...but the majority do not. Such a change would be a VERY significant gamble to succeed at all and is almost certain to be less successful  than a theme park. There would be no upside,  from a business perspective, to this.

 

Not going to lie, the labeling of theme partk games with, " anti consumer practices," while listing BDO, of all things, as a better example was one of the most jarring disconnects Ive seen in a while.

 

Also this:

"why do you think mobile games are so effective at extracting money? Small purchases do not feel large, so you buy significantly more, some times 3-4X more then you would normally. This model is more fair, "

 

So now tricking people into spending more than they normally would is more fair and isn't an, "anti consumer practice," since when?

 

Also, charging people $120 per y ear to play all content in the game is not easier on everyone's pocketbook than charging them $30-40 per year (expansion costs 60-80 every two years).

 

BTW, the idea that $10 is more appropriate for kids is largely irrelevant considering the average age of an MMORPG player is something like 26.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Ashen.2907

[Kurrilino.2706]

18 hours ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

Instead we should be doing. A soft subscription model.  I say soft, because we are not talking 300+ $ per year for membership like WoW, or the 200?$ a year that Ff14 or ESO cost. I proposing a MMO cost of 10 usd a month- why? There is an expression known by psychologists as the child 10.  It is the idea that parents are fine with giving their kids a 10$ allowance a week. 

You lost me right here.

GW1 is one of the healthiest games i ever played.

If they dish out a full fledged expansion every 6 month like in GW1, they have more than enough income.

Financial trouble started when they changed their business model towards Gem store and subscription like items like the 2 week passes.

people in general don't like it when development is going 90% towards the gem store and 10% towards the game.

 

 

I pay for a game and expect 100% game for my money.

If you want more money from me, give me more game. It's that easy

A-Net got a bloody nose and learned from it.

It's no coincidence that right after their firing wave and financial reports an expansion was announced,

even previously rating expansion as unlikely.

People want bang for their buck, not giving up constantly buck for the same bang

[The Greyhawk.9107]

7 hours ago, Haishao.6851 said:

NCSoft pulled the plug on GW3 and fired the entire team who was working on it in 2019.

No, those staff were working on other projects, including a mobile game apparently, no work has been done to date on an alleged Gw3 nor has NC cabashed any future plans of a GW3.  Unless you have definitive proof to the contrary.

[Vayne.8563]

7 hours ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

Plus I have the unpopular opinion that of the pvp community that I play GW2 for the pvp because of how someone above said, the combat system. I do not think I touched pve content on 4 of my char for over 4 years.  That is why I focused on the enemy AI as deep learned from pvp players.

Only 10% of the playerbase predominantly PvPs.  That means 90% of the playerbase doesn't predominantly PvP.  This was true for me in Guild Wars 1. I didn't PvP there either, at least not more than causally. 90% of my time in Guild Wars 1 was spent in PvE.

Since you don't represent the playerbase, I'm not sure why you think your suggestions would make a better game. It would make a better game for you, and maybe 10% of the playerbase.  But I seriously doubt it would make for a successful game. You're just not representative of the playerbase as a whole.  You might get some new people, but at the expense of losing the entire playerbase prior to that?

 

As for Guild Wars 1, I played 15,000 hours of Guild Wars 1 and loved it and still loved Guild Wars 2. It was different in some ways but not in the ways that were important to me.