GW2 has serious design flaws

[Danikat.8537]

5 hours ago, Izzy.2951 said:

GW1 was x10 times more cooperative and group/guild forming than GW2 has ever been (even with the addition of heros). In this game ppl dont know what is even to interact in a guild, that would have been crazy in the gw1 era, same about talking and forming stuff with other players (even to sell and buy items lol). Literally GW2 is the most soloable and antisocial mmo out there. 

Saying that GW1 was designed as a solo game, when it was designed as a cooperative game in all gamemodes is nearly a war crime. At least dont spread missinformation, cos gw2 even despite not having heros was designed to be way more soloable and non interacting than gw1, in buying/selling, guilds, soloing story/open world and even playing pvp (or directly cliking a random fractal group in lfg with 0 social interaction). Go watch also a video of top 10 games by google search from 2004-2021, you will find that gw1 was top 10 for 3 years in a row (even more than gw2 on its era xD) to say it was a low level IP. my god...

That was mostly true for the first few years, but by the time EotN came out it seemed like doing everything possible solo was the default for most people. Any time I asked in outposts or in guild/alliance chat if anyone wanted to join me I'd inevitably get told I could solo it. When I said I'd prefer to play with other people I got told it's 'more efficient' and you get more drops solo. Every single time it was a debate just to get people to accept that I might want someone else there.

And yes I thought it might just be my guild/alliance, but I went through several over the years and it was the same in all of them.

Also it's true that GW1 was designed from the start so you could play a lot of it solo if you wanted to. That's why they had henchmen. It wasn't a completely new concept, but older games tended to make a distinction between things you could do solo (it was often impractical to do those activities with other people because of XP/kill stealing) and things you needed to do in a group. GW1 made it much more flexible.

[Astralporing.1957]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:01 PM, Gwynnion.7364 said:

But if I've learned anything about these forums, it's that the long-timers and overachievers don't care about anything except protecting their sunk cost.  They don't want to share, they don't want to make things easier, they don't want it more accessible.  "Get good" and a confused face is all you're going to get.

Sure, there are always people like that, but trying to stretch that to every veteran in this game (or even just on thse forums) is not only a major stretch, but also rather insulting, don;t you think?

[Jianyu.7065]

The Skyscale track is a timeless topic of frustration in these forums. Timeless. You can expect a fresh post on an almost routine basis.

[Jianyu.7065]

On 3/27/2024 at 11:56 PM, Izzy.2951 said:

Saying that GW1 was designed as a solo game, when it was designed as a cooperative game in all gamemodes is nearly a war crime. 

Maybe you should ask Heroes and Mercs what they think about GW1 co-op game design....

And "war crime" - makes me wonder what your opinion is of actual war crimes....

[Vayne.8563]

1 hour ago, Jianyu.7065 said:

Maybe you should ask Heroes and Mercs what they think about GW1 co-op game design....

And "war crime" - makes me wonder what your opinion is of actual war crimes....

Heroes didn't exist when Guild Wars 1 launched, nor did Mercs for it's entire active development life time. We did have henchmen, but henchmen weren't allowed to go into the Underworld or Fissure of Woe, and they were woefully inadequate in end game content at any rate.

[Vayne.8563]

On 3/27/2024 at 6:01 AM, Gwynnion.7364 said:

But if I've learned anything about these forums, it's that the long-timers and overachievers don't care about anything except protecting their sunk cost.  They don't want to share, they don't want to make things easier, they don't want it more accessible.  "Get good" and a confused face is all you're going to get.

This is untrue of almost everyone I play with personally. I can't tell you how many people I've personally helped get their goals, even if they weren't good enough to do it themselves. I've helped people through story instances, dungeons, fractals, easier strikes. I've helped them get their turtles, get groups together for stuff like Serpent's Ire. I spend more than half my in game time helping new and returning players, or guildies, often at the expense of getting my own stuff done.

This kind of broad generalization is the kind of thing that, in my opinion, has no place on this forum. Painting any group of people with one brush is probably not the best course of action. 

[voltaicbore.8012]

GW2, in my experience, is one of the most generous games out there when it comes to providing information to players. It's why it came as such a pleasant shock to me that they included something like the Griffon collection, which was a complete secret that players stumbled upon during the early days of PoF.

To the OP (and those agreeing with them), I suggest attempting to just... learn your way around the UI?

[Jianyu.7065]

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Heroes didn't exist when Guild Wars 1 launched, nor did Mercs for it's entire active development life time. We did have henchmen, but henchmen weren't allowed to go into the Underworld or Fissure of Woe, and they were woefully inadequate in end game content at any rate.

Well, heroes not existing at launch is just cheery picking to make a bad point. They came with Nightfall which released only a year after launch in 2006. So, while the point of GW1 being geared toward co-op can be made its easily arguable as GW1 spent more time with heroes than without.

[Vayne.8563]

5 hours ago, Jianyu.7065 said:

Well, heroes not existing at launch is just cheery picking to make a bad point. They came with Nightfall which released only a year after launch in 2006. So, while the point of GW1 being geared toward co-op can be made its easily arguable as GW1 spent more time with heroes than without.

Sure but you could only use 3 of them. Which meant, at very least, you'd have to go into the Underworld or Fisssure of Woe with only 3 heroes. Henchmen couldn't go on there either.

My wife and I were able to beat DOA with 2 of us and six heroes, because we could each take 3. You also couldn't use 7 heroes back then. That change wasn't made until the game was no longer under active development.

Do you really think the game was designed to solo when the hardest content required you to do it with 3 heroes and 4 worthless henchmen?

It wasn't just FOW and the Underworld either. The Deep and Urgoz's Warren, which came out before heroes, had 12 characters that could enter. I doubt many could four man that.  Yet that's the most you can take.

Aside from that, Anet had said all along, it was all about designing a community.  

Edited March 29 by Vayne.8563

[Danikat.8537]

7 hours ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

GW2, in my experience, is one of the most generous games out there when it comes to providing information to players. It's why it came as such a pleasant shock to me that they included something like the Griffon collection, which was a complete secret that players stumbled upon during the early days of PoF.

To the OP (and those agreeing with them), I suggest attempting to just... learn your way around the UI?

I forgot about that. The griffon wasn't even mentioned in any of the advertising for PoF and no one knew about it until the first players completed the story and started the collection to unlock it.

My favourite surprises have always been the jumping puzzles. They're not completely secret, but at most you'll be told which map they're in and maybe get a hint at which area. So many times I've been poking around the scenery, thinking I'm wasting my time trying to climb something that was never intended to be climbed and gradually realise I'm on the path to a jumping puzzle. As someone who will always try to explore everywhere, even in games where that's not intended, it's really nice when there actually is something there for me to find.

[Vayne.8563]

2 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

I forgot about that. The griffon wasn't even mentioned in any of the advertising for PoF and no one knew about it until the first players completed the story and started the collection to unlock it.

My favourite surprises have always been the jumping puzzles. They're not completely secret, but at most you'll be told which map they're in and maybe get a hint at which area. So many times I've been poking around the scenery, thinking I'm wasting my time trying to climb something that was never intended to be climbed and gradually realise I'm on the path to a jumping puzzle. As someone who will always try to explore everywhere, even in games where that's not intended, it's really nice when there actually is something there for me to find.

That was true early on, but now most JPs in the newer zones have mastery points associated with them. People end up knowing they're there because they're looking for mastery points. This started back in Season 3, if I'm not mistaken, but even in HoT, there was a mastery commune at the top of the puzzle in VB.

[Ashen.2907]

10 hours ago, Jianyu.7065 said:

Well, heroes not existing at launch is just cheery picking to make a bad point. They came with Nightfall which released only a year after launch in 2006. So, while the point of GW1 being geared toward co-op can be made its easily arguable as GW1 spent more time with heroes than without.

The core game and Factions, full games on their own, did not have them. Nightfall (a full game) and Eye of the North, not a full game but rather an expansion, did. Arguably more of the game was released without them than with. Especially if you consider the fact that initially the limit on heroes meant needing other players to fill a group.

Still, it is very clear that ANet recognized the value of solo play, or at least the need for fewer human teammates, as the franchise went on.

[Jianyu.7065]

13 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Sure but you could only use 3 of them. Which meant, at very least, you'd have to go into the Underworld or Fisssure of Woe with only 3 heroes. Henchmen couldn't go on there either.

My wife and I were able to beat DOA with 2 of us and six heroes, because we could each take 3. You also couldn't use 7 heroes back then. That change wasn't made until the game was no longer under active development.

Do you really think the game was designed to solo when the hardest content required you to do it with 3 heroes and 4 worthless henchmen?

It wasn't just FOW and the Underworld either. The Deep and Urgoz's Warren, which came out before heroes, had 12 characters that could enter. I doubt many could four man that.  Yet that's the most you can take.

Aside from that, Anet had said all along, it was all about designing a community.  

 

I think the game catered to both solo and co-op so, to suggest that it's primarily a co-op game is probably closer to an opinion than a fact - regardless of ANets statement. I played GW1 entirely solo, except for my excusions into Factions, and I accomplished at least as much as anyone who played co-op. What do you expect my take to be based on my experience? Not only that, more content regarding how heroes were used was continuously developed to favor the solo player culminating with mercs. 

Also, I never said that I thought GW1 was built for the solo player, I said that the idea of the game being primarily co-op is arguable and there is plenty of evidence to argue it.

[Vayne.8563]

19 hours ago, Jianyu.7065 said:

 

I think the game catered to both solo and co-op so, to suggest that it's primarily a co-op game is probably closer to an opinion than a fact - regardless of ANets statement. I played GW1 entirely solo, except for my excusions into Factions, and I accomplished at least as much as anyone who played co-op. What do you expect my take to be based on my experience? Not only that, more content regarding how heroes were used was continuously developed to favor the solo player culminating with mercs. 

Also, I never said that I thought GW1 was built for the solo player, I said that the idea of the game being primarily co-op is arguable and there is plenty of evidence to argue it.

The mechanics didn't evolve to favor solo players. The mechanics evolved to favor a shrinking population. After Guild Wars 2 came out, there was no reason not to add mercs, because there were so many fewer people playing the game. They didn't say, hey, I have an idea, let's let everyone play solo. They said, look, we don't have enough people for people to form parties.

The original game, as designs, only had henchmen. They were insufficient to do the hardest content in the game. It doesn't mean you couldn't play solo but you sure made it alot harder for yourself.  Two of the four games that came out, had no heroes at all, and the content got harder, putting people who soloed in a harder and harder position. Heroes was a compromise on Anet's part, but when it came out, they only let you use three of them to prevent you from doing end game content.

Sure you could play through the story and nothing else. Ignore the challenge mode dungeons, or make them much much harder, but how much end game content did you actually do?  DOA, Slavers Exile, The UnderWorld, Urgoz's Warren, The Deep, The Fissure of Woe? How many hard mode dungeons did you do? 

Sure as the population fell, Anet absolutely created more opportunities for people to play. It's the same reason they created Embark Bay so that people could gather at one outpost instead of many. Fewer people playing, because people had moved to Guild Wars 2.  That's when they started letting you have 7 heroes.

Your correct that the game was made to be more possible as time went on, but that doesn't mean it was because Anet created the game to be soloed. They created the game to be cooped, and they threw a bone to solo people, until there weren't enough people to get content done without soloing and then they made that change.

Edited March 31 by Vayne.8563
spelling