Jump to content
  • Sign Up

What I Personally Think GW3 should look like


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello everyone. With many players discussing EOD and the future of the game, I want to take the difficult road- and assume GW3 is in the works- even if unlikely or your in disagreement- let us assume

I have 9 years invested in my Characters.  I don't intend to leave for a new version.

Let me put it that way: the changes you propose are, in my opinion, for the most part changes for the worse. 1. Sandbox game - those are generally primarily PvP ones. You even said it yourself wh

7 hours ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

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

I guess GW3 as envisioned by OP would be the first one. That seems like a grand goal to pursue. Preferably somewhere else, far away from GW2, in some place where potential fallout from it blowing in devs face would not hurt us here.

 

Edited by Astralporing.1957
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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?  

Many. Probably more than there are players still playing it today.

 

8 hours ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

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.  

That's a claim practically all new MMORPGs make. Most of those MMORPGs go under very fast. Few stay on, and even fever succeed. And no game since WoW has ever managed to dominate the market - and definitely not on virtue of their own features. Even the most recent success of FF XIV happened less due to how good the game actually is (even though it is quite good), but more because its primary competitor managed to kitten up royally in far more than one way.

The market is for the most part already tapped, and player movement is not that big. And usually only happens when some other game massively kittens up.

Those big crowds that show up on new games like New World? For the most part those are either the content locust, or players from other games being curious. Most of them are generally going to leave, either to move on to an even never title (the locust crowd), or back to their original title (as soon as they realize, that the new game is not "Their Old Game, But Better".

 

8 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.

Well, as you have already mentioned, this is an "unpopular opinion". Because it so happens that vast majority of the MMORPG players are either PvE, or like their PvE and PvP separated.

8 hours ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

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.  

A game with 8-9 devs is not going to generate a lot of content. This may be fine for a niche, pure PvP game at best. And guess what, that's not what most of GW2 players came here for.

 

8 hours ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

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.

Because that would not be a good idea. You'd end up with downsides of both without the benefits of either.

 

8 hours ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

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

I'm not sure toy even understand what you're trying to say here. But no, having an "advanced AI behaviour" for mobs, while possibly increasing variations and difficulty of fights, would not actually create any new content. And definitely not infinitely.

8 hours ago, AusarViled.7106 said:

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..

Well, the original reason for this name disappeared even before GW1 launched. And guess what? It happened because devs realized that PvE is way more popular.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, wait a bit before releasing GW3, I haven't done all the GW2 maps yet!

I'm all for a radical revamp of WvW though, with player-made structures and other strategic elements, if we can afford bigger servers.

Evolving AIs can be interesting in some PvE instances but, again, more computation and bigger servers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leo.3428 said:

Hey, wait a bit before releasing GW3, I haven't done all the GW2 maps yet!

Speaking of which, since people always have a hissyfit about GW3 whenever its brought up and its worth just repeating it in general, we're looking at a 3 to 5 year timeline even if they announced GW3 today. 

Anyway while I understand the lure of fancy huge monoworlds, I think a new game should obviously be built on the success of the GW2 service style and design. The instances work wonders overall, the "small" WvW maps letting us play without too much lag, the separation of modes, etc. Taking after the failures of other games is a bad idea. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

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

That's what New World is supposed to be. They threw in some basic PvE very late in development, and added the option to flag yourself for PvE-only after one of the betas where players said they wanted it, but the focus of the game and the majority of the content is PvP. Either individual fights over resources or whatever they call guilds claiming towns and fighting each other for them.

It's too new to say if its successful however. I've heard it had a rough launch with a lot of bugs (some fairly serious) but that's true of most MMOs. The one person I know who was playing it has stopped, but he does that with everything. Even games he says he loves he'll have burned out on and stopped playing within a few weeks.

Other than that I think it's all games like GW2 and Elder Scrolls Online which at most claim PvP and PvE are equally important. PvP was supposed to be the endgame of ESO when it was in development - the story focused a lot on the war between Alliances and once you'd finished your Alliances maps and the main story (which was supposed to take you up to max level) that's all there was to do. Shortly before launch they allowed you to go through the other 2 Alliances after that, effectively tripling the PvE content available to each character and since then the majority of new releases have been PvE focused because apparently that's what the majority of people spend their time doing.

Edited by Danikat.8537
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

That's what New World is supposed to be. They threw in some basic PvE very late in development, and added the option to flag yourself for PvE-only after one of the betas where players said they wanted it, but the focus of the game and the majority of the content is PvP. Either individual fights over resources or whatever they call guilds claiming towns and fighting each other for them.

It's too new to say if its successful however. I've heard it had a rough launch with a lot of bugs (some fairly serious) but that's true of most MMOs. The one person I know who was playing it has stopped, but he does that with everything. Even games he says he loves he'll have burned out on and stopped playing within a few weeks.

Other than that I think it's all games like GW2 and Elder Scrolls Online which at most claim PvP and PvE are equally important. PvP was supposed to be the endgame of ESO when it was in development - the story focused a lot on the war between Alliances and once you'd finished your Alliances maps and the main story (which was supposed to take you up to max level) that's all there was to do. Shortly before launch they allowed you to go through the other 2 Alliances after that, effectively tripling the PvE content available to each character and since then the majority of new releases have been PvE focused because apparently that's what the majority of people spend their time doing.

Yeah, I've heard the New World horror stories, so didn't count it as a "successful" MMO. Maybe in time it will be? Crowfall is another, right? Similar story? Or just bad? But don't worry, Ashes of Creation will scratch that itch. It's scheduled for release some time after Star Citizen I believe.

  • Haha 5
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DeanBB.4268 said:

Yeah, I've heard the New World horror stories, so didn't count it as a "successful" MMO. Maybe in time it will be? Crowfall is another, right? Similar story? Or just bad? But don't worry, Ashes of Creation will scratch that itch. It's scheduled for release some time after Star Citizen I believe.

I've never heard of Crowfall so I couldn't tell you anything about it.

I only know about New World because a friend of mine was really into it (and encouraging everyone he knows to get it), so I looked into it to see if it's something I'd want to play. (By that point I'd already learned that buying a game just to play with him would be a waste of money, I'd think we were just getting going and he'd be moving on to something else, so it had to be a game I'd also want to play solo/with other people.) For me the lack of PvE content and the amount of grinding involved killed the appeal, but I wouldn't rule out the game eventually finding it's niche and a solid audience.

I'm not a big fan of PvP and WvW pretty much covers what I want so I'm not looking for another PvP game. In particular I've realised I like when PvP and PvE are kept distinctly separate so you know everyone else in the map is there to play the same mode you are. That's not just good when I'm playing PvE and don't want to worry about gankers but also when I'm playing PvP - I also don't want to waste my time with gankers who will run a mile if they suspect you're prepared to fight and won't be an easy mark. Either way it's not fun for anyone else involved.

I think the only other thing I'd like is something like GW1's Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry - smaller scale and shorter than WvW but not as pointless as running around a little pen killing the same 5 people over and over.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

OP seems to be one of those who played MMORPGs before WoW corrupted the genre.
WoW formula wasn't bad per say, but it was but one single approach that should have been just that : one approach.
But following wow every single MMO tried to do the same and now people only know about theme park mmos.

Originally MMOs were sandbox oriented. In fact, they were more akin to rogue likes : 
You started in a hub (a main city), and had to venture your way outside as far as you could until you died and spawn back at the hub (There were like 5 hubs at most depending of the presence of faction or race).
No waypoints, no schedule.
A natural positive result of that was the feeling of a populated city and thus a lively community.

"Legendary monster" had their own agendas in that, they spawned randomly in some region. 
Just exploring the outside world was enough challenge to incite people to group together.

This was the formula I was most attached to.
Now for most of the people here, it might sound like a boring concept, but that's because usually people tend to reject ideas they are not familiar with. 
Fun fact, Back when WoW wasn't a thing, people used to make fun of those who mentioned the idea of having a story and chapters in an MMORPG.

Edited by Tabootrinket.2631
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tabootrinket.2631 said:

OP seems to be one of those who played MMORPGs before WoW corrupted the genre.
WoW formula wasn't bad per say, but it was but one single approach that should have been just that : one approach.
But following wow every single MMO tried to do the same and now people only know about theme park mmos.

Originally MMOs were sandbox oriented. In fact, they were more akin to rogue likes : 
You started in a hub (a main city), and had to venture your way outside as far as you could until you died and spawn back at the hub (There were like 5 hubs at most depending of the presence of faction or race).
No waypoints, no schedule.
A natural positive result of that was the feeling of a populated city and thus a lively community.

"Legendary monster" had their own agendas in that, they spawned randomly in some region. 
Just exploring the outside world was enough challenge to incite people to group together.

This was the formula I was most attached to.
Now for most of the people here, it might sound like a boring concept, but that's because usually people tend to reject ideas they are not familiar with. 
Fun fact, Back when WoW wasn't a thing, people used to make fun of those who mentioned the idea of having a story and chapters in an MMORPG.

Have you considered that not all differences of opinion are a result of ignorance?

I played MMOs back then. Ultima Online was my main one, but I also tried Everquest and Runescape (which I didn't like as much) and a couple I can't even remember the names of.

As I explained earlier in this thread I had to give up on it because I couldn't commit the time required or the regular schedule necessary to be part of a community and didn't enjoy the limited options available to a solo player. For various reasons I lost interest in WoW before it released, in spite of being a big fan of Warcraft 2. Until I discovered Guild Wars 1 I just assumed MMOs weren't for me and I'd never be able to play one. It's not a coincidence or some sort of mistake that this is the franchise I've stuck with for 16 years, it was an informed choice.

Also if you prefer sandbox style MMOs or other styles that were more common before WoW there's still options for that. For one thing Ultima Online is still online.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Many. Probably more than there are players still playing it today.

 

That's a claim practically all new MMORPGs make. Most of those MMORPGs go under very fast. Few stay on, and even fever succeed. And no game since WoW has ever managed to dominate the market - and definitely not on virtue of their own features. Even the most recent success of FF XIV happened less due to how good the game actually is (even though it is quite good), but more because its primary competitor managed to kitten up royally in far more than one way.

The market is for the most part already tapped, and player movement is not that big. And usually only happens when some other game massively kittens up.

Those big crowds that show up on new games like New World? For the most part those are either the content locust, or players from other games being curious. Most of them are generally going to leave, either to move on to an even never title (the locust crowd), or back to their original title (as soon as they realize, that the new game is not "Their Old Game, But Better".

 

Well, as you have already mentioned, this is an "unpopular opinion". Because it so happens that vast majority of the MMORPG players are either PvE, or like their PvE and PvP separated.

A game with 8-9 devs is not going to generate a lot of content. This may be fine for a niche, pure PvP game at best. And guess what, that's not what most of GW2 players came here for.

 

Because that would not be a good idea. You'd end up with downsides of both without the benefits of either.

 

I'm not sure toy even understand what you're trying to say here. But no, having an "advanced AI behaviour" for mobs, while possibly increasing variations and difficulty of fights, would not actually create any new content. And definitely not infinitely.

Well, the original reason for this name disappeared even before GW1 launched. And guess what? It happened because devs realized that PvE is way more popular.

Quoting this because every single word of it is worth reading twice.

 

I would like to emphasize, in particular, the point about people who prefer their PvP separated. I PvP as my end game content. I play the story once or twice depending on the content and then do instanced content and PvP for the majority of my play time afterward. Despite my enjoyment of PvP in general (both sPvP and WvW in GW2) I will not play a game with open world PvP.. The last thing I want is to be trying to work through a story bit, or gathering, or whatever pure PvE you name, to have some stealth focused PKer come at me out of nowhere. Not fun. There is a reason that boxing doesn't include an element in which one of the contestants can shoot the other from surprise while he is out jogging the day before the match.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Speaking of which, since people always have a hissyfit about GW3 whenever its brought up and its worth just repeating it in general, we're looking at a 3 to 5 year timeline even if they announced GW3 today. 

 

Maybe even longer if GW3 was to lift the franchise to the next level. I hope the joking naivety of that sentence of mine that you quoted was obvious enough.

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

no need for GW3.

But, Game Engine overhaul for DX12(we got 16core/32thread CPUs now in days, heck i ran a 32core/64thread threadripper), mGPU(crossfire and SLI are dead for new gpus but, multi-GPU is still a thing XD)

+1 on the VIP subscription option, Runescape has it and it did great for the company.

some of us are willing to spare some cash if it keeps the games running(GW1 and GW2)

  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jishi.7568 said:

no need for GW3.

But, Game Engine overhaul for DX12(we got 16core/32thread CPUs now in days, heck i ran a 32core/64thread threadripper), mGPU(crossfire and SLI are dead for new gpus but, multi-GPU is still a thing XD)

+1 on the VIP subscription option, Runescape has it and it did great for the company.

some of us are willing to spare some cash if it keeps the games running(GW1 and GW2)

Then buy 800-1200 gems each month and call it a vip sub in your head mate.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jishi.7568 said:

+1 on the VIP subscription option, Runescape has it and it did great for the company.

some of us are willing to spare some cash if it keeps the games running(GW1 and GW2)

What do you expect to get out of that vip subscription that you wouldn't get out of just buying gems each month yourself?

 

Either you get stuff cheaper than you would if you bought gems once a year for the same amount of money you pay for a year of subscription. Why is your money suddenly more valuable than that of the guy that pays it all in one go?

 

Or you get exclusive stuff that you can't get without paying monthly (looking at you, ESO material storage). Suddenly the optional subscription isn't quite as optional as it pretends to be.

 

Or you don't get anything extra but just the same amount of gems you would've gotten if you bought them normally. What would be the incentive to buy a subscription in that case?

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2022 at 1:43 AM, The Greyhawk.9107 said:

Gonna be honest, VR becoming an actual mainstream media model and not just a gimmick genuinely terrifies me.  Haven't there been enough dystopian sci-fi movies to warn against this?

 

Plus I like being able to see my characters.

Good point, I prefer third person RPGs, too, but I’m also attracted to the lure of the possible immersion. I don’t suppose a third person viewpoint couldn’t be done in VR, with the user as a disembodied camera outside the character like we have now.
 

As to sci-fi warnings, I wasn’t thinking completely immersive VR that’s indistinguishable from reality, just good enough to be a comfortable, immersive experience for most.

Sci-fi did warn us about large screens on the walls of our living rooms with fake characters we came to view as our friends, but we’ve been living with that for a while and the consequences have only been moderately terrible for society. So maybe that next step into VR won’t be too bad. 😄

Edited by Gibson.4036
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...