Thoughts about GW3 [Merged]

[Sobx.1758]

3 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

And it got completely ignored over a tangential extreme example.

It wasn't "completely ignored" and it wasn't "a tangential extreme example". It was literally the idea he wrote in the thread he made. I already linked the post to you, quoted the relevant part and even made the part of that quote in bold. Are you seriously telling me you still can't be bothered reading and understanding what you're trying to respond to?

3 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

The real answer to "how we'd do X mode inside Y mode" would be "we wouldn't", there would just be less (sub)modes to go around, and less divisions inside those modes.

Let's be honest, again, the main issue is very real. We have instanced PvE modes split over 5-man, 10-man and 50-man. Each of those is split again (5 man into dungeons, fractals and DRMs, 10 man into raids and strikes). There's no unified lobbies for all of that either. And it's not just having fractals, strikes, raids and dungeons separated into  different lobbies, but also strikes being separated into 3 different lobbies as well - and for no good reason at all.

Ignoring all of this just to debate about "how to put fractals in OW" is trying to sidestep the very core of the issue at hand and concentrate at arguments that are at best tangential to that. Tangential, but easier to argue against, i guess.

psst, that wasn't ignored either:

16 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

The question was: how would those encounters work in open world? I think they wouldn't. They'd be a zerged semi-afk "content" like current open world bosses are, which don't have much to do with raids/strikes/fractals. "dedicate one mode" is a bad idea, because those modes don't do the same thing. They can decide on "fractals over dungeons" or "strikes over raids" because those are targetting similar experiences, but that's also exactly what they are currently doing. You're basically advocating for them to cut content types while hoping what they cut isn't what you like? I think that's a bad idea.

17 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I think you're both missing the point of introducing those "substitutes" (like "dungeons -> fractals" and "raids -> strikes"). The point seems to be an attempt to improve the content, but apparently it's either not reasonably possible to do with the old content or it's much easier to create a new iteration (fractals/strikes) than to implement the changes/improvements to the old content.

 

My man, if you can't be bothered with reading then don't strain yourself and don't nonsensically jump into something you clearly don't understand, just because you apparently have some weird craving for a cheap jab at me.

14 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Yes, you are obviously reading it wrong (or not reading at all)

Seriously, how ironic.

Edited April 26 by Sobx.1758

[Cyninja.2954]

23 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

So, you think a GW3 would not be superior to GW2?

Define superior. Superior graphics? Sure. Superior performance? Probably. Superior game play? How would one know? Superior experience? Again, how would one know?

What is your measure and definition of superior here? With cars and carriages this was pretty clear.

To summarize: Why would I assume GW3 would be superior overall? What basis is there to suspect that given the current and past market trends, this has seldom or never been the case? I could speculate and assume it will be, but that is certainly not established in this segment of the market.

EDIT:

Case in point: New World is the FAR superior game to GW2 in some areas. Is it the superior game overall?

Now go replace New World with GW3 in those statements/questions.

Edited April 26 by Cyninja.2954

[kharmin.7683]

34 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Define superior. Superior graphics? Sure. Superior performance? Probably. Superior game play? How would one know? Superior experience? Again, how would one know?

What is your measure and definition of superior here? With cars and carriages this was pretty clear.

To summarize: Why would I assume GW3 would be superior overall? What basis is there to suspect that given the current and past market trends, this has seldom or never been the case? I could speculate and assume it will be, but that is certainly not established in this segment of the market.

EDIT:

Case in point: New World is the FAR superior game to GW2 in some areas. Is it the superior game overall?

Now go replace New World with GW3 in those statements/questions.

No one knew how cars would be superior to horse\carriage until they were made and used. 

[Cyninja.2954]

5 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

No one knew how cars would be superior to horse\carriage until they were made and used. 

So your argument is that GW3 will not be a MMORPG? Because those have been around for a while.

Also you are simplifying the development of cars. They did not just summon in out of thin air. The theory and work behind getting them to work took years and was well established by the time they replaced horse/carriage.

Edited April 26 by Cyninja.2954

[Izzy.2951]

41 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

So your argument is that GW3 will not be a MMORPG? Because those have been around for a while.

Also you are simplifying the development of cars. They did not just summon in out of thin air. The theory and work behind getting them to work took years and was well established by the time they replaced horse/carriage.

comfort = superior.

If you bring the same exact combat of GW2 to GW3 its not gonna be fun, its not gonna be replayable, its not gonna be fun to watch. And ultimately neither instanced combat and PvP will succeed. I can understand they thought in 2010 while making it it would be the next generation, but it wasnt. The most played games in MMORPG scene have slower combat, not so spammy (action per minute) and with more centric roles for certain things. The most succesfull MOBA/shooters etc... have way more visual clarity, way less skills and also way less intense button smash (action per minute) than GW2.

Its not even about git gud, you can smash button pretty fast, being in a ball, constant spam a boon, do the gimmick about face pushing 3 buttons and the little puzzles/gimmicks of the boss. But ultimatly its gonna be less fun and replayable than other combat systems. I dont care how much a minority can praise the GW2 combat, aside of being fluid (you can have a fluid combat that is a bit slower to react/watch a game or directly have less skills to smash), in general gw2 combat is a mess since it was created and is the main reason why this game was not more popular. 

I can spam buttons really fast, i just dont wanna have a game where the gameplay is "have all your skills on cooldown like a brainded", "skills being instant cast and with low visual clarity", "no roles" neither of those are fun and make you wanna replay for thousands of hours. Same goes for "be on a ball", "spam an op boon on cooldown", "do little puzzles instead of proper tank/dps/heal/prot cos the game is all about gimmick stuff" and "pve being easy on top of that cos you do all this just to clear content faster".

What GW2 (also GW1) has succeed is horizontal progresion, no predatory money system, cosmetic/wardrobe system, general feeling of fighting a huge boss in open world, completionism, mount system and maybe being in the GW universe/lore. Thats it. The only good thing that gw2 combat has is fluidity, all the rest is a mess that makes you wanna play other games both for pvp and pve.

PD: WvW also at launch feeled fresh and nice, but again is a mess with many other stuff around it and has no purpose/prestige/showoff around it.

Edited April 26 by Izzy.2951

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Izzy.2951 said:

comfort = superior.

If you bring the same exact combat of GW2 to GW3 its not gonna be fun, its not gonna be replayable, its not gonna be fun to watch. And ultimately neither instanced combat and PvP will succeed. I can understand they thought in 2010 while making it it would be the next generation, but it wasnt. The most played games in MMORPG scene have slower combat, not so spammy (action per minute) and with more centric roles for certain things. The most succesfull MOBA/shooters etc... have way more visual clarity, way less skills and also way less intense button smash (action per minute) than GW2.

True, I am also pretty sure the next game will be far more friendly in regards to performance of players. Maybe even with a trinity.

Now how well that meshes with the existing player base which enjoys the current system, that is up for debate. Seems you are making an argument that GW3 should aim at pleasing a larger audience, while competing with other titles in the segment more directly. Risky but who knows, maybe it will work. After all, in 3-5 years WoW and FF14 will have aged too, even with their vastly larger budgets.

Not saying that might not work, just pointing to the argument of "existing player base will move on" seems weaker when you change the things some might be enjoying about this game.

Quote

Its not even about git gud, you can smash button pretty fast, being in a ball, constant spam a boon, do the gimmick about face pushing 3 buttons and the little puzzles/gimmicks of the boss. But ultimatly its gonna be less fun and replayable than other combat systems. I dont care how much a minority can praise the GW2 combat, aside of being fluid (you can have a fluid combat that is a bit slower to react/watch a game or directly have less skills to smash), in general gw2 combat is a mess since it was created and is the main reason why this game was not more popular. 

I can spam buttons really fast, i just dont wanna have a game where the gameplay is "have all your skills on cooldown like a brainded", "skills being instant cast and with low visual clarity", "no roles" neither of those are fun and make you wanna replay for thousands of hours. Same goes for "be on a ball", "spam an op boon on cooldown", "do little puzzles instead of proper tank/dps/heal/prot cos the game is all about gimmick stuff" and "pve being easy on top of that cos you do all this just to clear content faster".

 

That is a very superficial and low skill evaluation of this games combat system, but your point still stands: you do not enjoy this games combat, that's a fair criticism.

Obviously you might enjoy a different type of combat system more. There is no guarantee you will enjoy GW3s combat, but at least it is a dice roll instead of disliking it (which is the case for GW2)

There is obviously also the possibility of you disliking the combat system in GW3, or the content it provides. I've mentioned in the past: I'm pretty sure GW3 will be far more PvE focused than GW2 (which was being developed off of GW1 competitive hype).

Quote

What GW2 (also GW1) has succeed is horizontal progresion, no predatory money system, cosmetic/wardrobe system, general feeling of fighting a huge boss in open world, completionism, mount system and maybe being in the GW universe/lore. Thats it. The only good thing that gw2 combat has is fluidity, all the rest is a mess that makes you wanna play other games both for pvp and pve.

Hold on, you are lumping a lot of things together trying to make an argument larger than it is. One after the other:

1.What GW2 (also GW1) has succeed is horizontal progresion - TRUE

2. no predatory money system - I would agree, I am sure some others would not. I'll still go with TRUE, even if the monetization system has become progressively more expensive

3. cosmetic/wardrobe system - a thing in GW2, not GW1. Also monetized versus competitor systems like WoWs or FF14s

4. general feeling of fighting a huge boss in open world - again GW2 and not GW1. This might be the goal again with GW3, but we can't be sure (I'd assume it will be but again, this was not the case with GW1)

5. completionism - TRUE, for those interested in this both games offer a ton to work towards. Most of this was added during both games lifespan though and not available at release

6. mount system - again GW2 and not GW1, TRUE and so successful that other companies are copying the best parts

7. The only good thing that gw2 combat has is fluidity - one could argue that this is a result of the overall design of the combat system, which you were all to happy to criticize earlier. Seems to me you want it both ways as argument. I will yield that both GW1 and GW2 has fun combat systems so one can hope for GW3 to be similar

 

Looking at your points, you seem to want (and thus imagine) a very specific niche case scenario where GW3 will provide everything you enjoyed while "fixing" everything you disliked. Now who is to say that will not be the case.

Seems to me that is a TON of assumptions and as mentioned a VERY niche scenario. The reality will most likely be: you will enjoy some thing about GW3, while you will not enjoy other things. The question thus only becomes: will you enjoy more about the game versus what GW2 has to offer.

[Yerlock.4678]

20 hours ago, Izzy.2951 said:

Like what are you talking about? they have commited to just one mode of 5/10 instanced group content that is Strikes and fractals. Raids were abandonned in 2019 and dungeons in 2013. I think your out of the loop.

And btw for your other comment, if pvp, wvw, raids etc didnt existed ever in gw2. This game would be probably dead already cos you wouldnt have had those pvp/raid players.

Ya they committed to just those two modes now. Look at all the pain and trial and errors they went through to get here. And even now it doesn’t end, because we have convergences. It’s not that I don’t like these modes, they’re pretty fun. It’s just showing bloat on the part of Gw2 and adding more and more scope creep that isn’t obvious to access unless you’re already “in the loop” like we are. 
But what’s worse than this is that the modes we like most will never be supported to the level we truly want, even if it’s a staple like wvw, because of all the game mode creep this game has.

 

To your other comment I wasn’t saying raid,PvP,wvw shouldn’t exist. Far from it. I was just saying they need to focus on only something like wvw/pvp/open world/ and dungeons which can be upscaled to raids without reducing quality. If they did that stuff only, and then only had story content in the base game and expacs it would cut dev time and we could get more of that content.

[Yerlock.4678]

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Their track record of what, 2 games?

Their track record of monetization development in GW2?

2 games and many expansions in both of those games yes. I would argue their asking price for those games and the expacs in both are far more reasonable than the industry standard.

 

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

You being oblivious does not erase the already present monetization increases which have both taken place between the first and second title, as well as within GW2s lifespan. 

EDIT: and just to reinvigorate your memory: we went from character slots, transmutation charges, rez orbs, bag slots (initial bag slot cap was 8, so 4 more. Now it's 14, most recently increased with SotO)  and booster on release to:

- bank slots (first added Feb 2013) of 8, to by now 17

- massive amounts of cosmetic items of differing design

- booster packs of differing design (Starter Pack, Weekly Pack, Living World Pack, etc.)

- way point unlocks and character boosts

- build and equipment templates (and similar to bag slots, increasing amount)

- glider skins, mount skins, boat skins. Most of which are gem store only

- free on login living world content, to now mini epxansions

- and more (just open the gem store and look at the divers selection of items which are on sale)

Okay let’s go through what you mentioned:

Bank slots increased from 8 to 17. This allowed people to get more bank slots if they wanted. Gameplay and quality of life were hardly affected unless you were playing a ton and had a massive amount of items. In which case you probably already had the gold to convert for extra slots.

Cosmetics being added. They’re cosmetic. And again even if they’re gemstore only you can always convert the gold if you’re playing enough anyway.

Boosters/waypoint unlocks. Gem store->gold can access-> play the game for gold. Sure for newer players these can be incentivizing but the game is quite generous for starting player accounts giving a few of these out.

Build equipment templates. Similar to bank slots in that you only felt pressured to get these if you were already playing the game enough to want to need more templates for other specs or builds. And if you were you likely could get the gold required without paying if you wanted just by playing the game.

You mentioned skins again which I guess was a mistake? Again just convert gold and they’re cosmetic anyways. Literally affects the game in no way other than fashion.

Free living world story content if logged in to mini expacs which are paid. You forgot to mention you get more than just story in the expacs and new maps, but also new weapons for all the classes as well which unlock new archetypes. Oops.

More gemstore stuff. While I admit that the gemstore is a massive income sink for anet and many of the weapon skins basically look like legendaries without the footfall, it’s nowhere near predatory enough for me to whine. I started a new account for fun and found the qol was more or less the same then a seasoned 11 year account. Maybe some nitpicks here or there but nothing major.

On a side note I actually think Rez orbs are insane I can’t believe the community is okay with this haha. They literally bring you back to life as much as you want as long as you have them. In my opinion this is a step too far but that’s just me.

 

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

and a lot of designs which encourage or promote spending money on the game. Less than other games and this game remains one of the cheapest MMORPGs in the market, but it HAS developed and increased monetization (and monetization practices) since launch. Is that the track record your are referring to?

The only spending increase I’ve really noticed historically with the game was buying expacs every 3-5 years to 1 year. While I admit that to an alarmist that can sound pretty frightening, we should also remember that we’re getting more content sooner. Instead of new weapons/specs/pve maps and mode/story with perhaps a new feature that is something like mounts or boats or gliders after a massive years long drought only followed by another drought lasting years, we are getting new weapons/pve maps/story/and a new game mechanic rework like relics. Lets not forget that due to the new weapons and relics, we basically got a cheaper way to play our classes in a different style and archetype (bruiser/dos/healer/ whatever it may be) that echoes what specs are like. Granted they’re not as massive a change as specs, but considering the releases are yearly now instead of after half a decade, I think that’s a win for us as consumers.

 

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

GW2 sold well. How long ago was the launch?

Side questions: if GW2 was doing "so well", why is a GW3 being developed?

Many years ago, with frequent expansions in between (now even more expacs which will probably be more lucrative for them).

To your second question that’s easy: NCSoft wants that continual growth. We should keep in mind that anet is not the only player under the umbrella of ncsoft. They have other companies and other ventures overseas. While gw2 might show to them that it’s doing fine, fine is not always fine enough for a publisher. If I had to speculate I would say that NCsoft felt pressured to tell anet to make gw3 so they could show investors that they shouldn’t lose hope or doubt them. Thats essentially what the leak demonstrated. 

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Fun fact: no they can't (besides the minor amount of gems acquired via achievement milestones).

You ignoring that those gems are being purchased by another player than the one acquiring the item from the gem store does not negate that fact.

Gems in this game are generated via purchase of those gems with real money, always.

So I have some good news for you. This game has always had a gold to gem conversion tab. You should check it out cuz it makes many of your points null and void. It’s called the currency exchange: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Currency_Exchange

“Currency Exchange allows players to trade coin for gems and vice versa.“

It’s usually important to make sure that a “fact” is actually indeed a fact.

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Once again an issue where you seem unclear on HOW money is being generated for the studio or how ingame systems obfuscate (even if beneficial to some players, aka shuffling the purchase to wealthier players) how they promote the generation of revenue (in this case gem sales).

Yeah these systems that enhance qol for veteran players usually lets them get more money through gemstore purchases if they don’t wanna spend any gold. Oh noes.

 

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

They did didn't they? Oh yeah they are also making a ton more $ per player than before.

Who blizzard or anet? They probably both are just due to all the new features and things added to the games over the years. More to buy more to sell, ez.

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Staying with the same game type: the WoW of today generates a TON more money per player than the WoW of old. 

Well yeah wow always generated more money than any mmo before or since.

 

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Once again, there is a huge difference between Blizzard and Arenanet or NCSoft and Activision, and that gap can and will be bridged. I've already mentioned how Areannets owning company has done so in other titles.

Yeah and like I already said we just have to keep an eye out for if they do anything that goes too far. As of now I haven’t gotten any good example except for revival orbs lol. 

 

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

You expecting something based on wishful thinking or assumptions which ignore financial realities is on you.

I mean I wouldn’t call it wishful thinking just an educated guess as to what will happen based off of previous titles and expansions. If I started dooming needlessly or being hyperbolic I’d be just overly cynical. I don’t wanna be cynical needlessly even if I was disguised like a ninja.

23 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

I figured I'd keep it short as well as some of the issues where already mentioned in this post and have to do with how the current game content is being released, and not expecting a change in that direction.

As to saying a lot: you are, most of it lacking substance or grounding in current day reality. The gem comment being your latest example of lacking understanding.

Oh that’s good to know my gem comment was not based in reality. I guess I’m living in a different universe then, because the universe I live in has a game called guild wars 2 with a currency exchange that lets you convert gold to gems.

But I guess because you pointed out that it’s a “fact” that you have to pay for gems and can’t convert from gold means I’m the one who’s wrong here. 

“Gems in this game are generated via purchase of those gems with real money, always.“

This statement right here proves that it is you good sir or ma’am who does not know how gems fully work. Or apparently what is or isn’t “facts” or grounded in current day reality. Because it’s not a fact that you can only buy gems with real money.  That’s literally false.

So maybe next time before claiming something is a fact, it’s best to do research before claiming it falsely as a fact.

Also thank you for not giving any reasons as to why I was wrong or providing any examples or evidence. I agree it’s much easier to make claims without any proof, I guess I should just expect that.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

A thread with comments by the then-economist John Smith:

 

[Cyninja.2954]

6 hours ago, gmmg.9210 said:

So I have some good news for you. This game has always had a gold to gem conversion tab. You should check it out cuz it makes many of your points null and void. It’s called the currency exchange: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Currency_Exchange

“Currency Exchange allows players to trade coin for gems and vice versa.“

It’s usually important to make sure that a “fact” is actually indeed a fact.

 

Oh dear god. Did you bother to read how the gem-gold conversion works in the link you provided?

Every single gem bought with gold was bought previously and placed in the exchange by another player (except for the ones gained via ap rewards as mentioned).

It's 2 pools where the relationship to how much is in each one defines the conversion rate.

That is THE entire design  behind the exchange and via creating demand for gems, the system is fueled.

For more, read the comment from the games economist John Smith while he was still in charge of the games economy above by Inculpatus cedo.9234.

Here let me quote his statement, in case you fail to read it:

To be clear. The exchange has a supply of both Gems and Gold. When you trade to the exchange you influence the supply of each. The exchange rate is relative to current supply of each. The price changes geometrically as one pool empties creating a better exchange rate for the low supplied currency. For this reason it's VERY difficult for the exchange to run out of currency.

As conversion ratios change, so does trading in both directions, but, that still means every single gem in the exchange was put there before by someone (in this case another player) and the only thing preventing the exchange to "dry up" is that exchange rates would go insanely high as the gem pool declines.

So once again: clueless.

As to the rest of your comment, given 90% of it was gloating about how you are correct about gem.gold conversion, I'm going to skip commenting on it given how you were basically wrong on everything. Well except maybe this:

Quote

So maybe next time before claiming something is a fact, it’s best to do research before claiming it falsely as a fact.

Oh the sweet sweet irony, and that's pretty much why your "educated guess" is about as serious as, well seeing a unicorn graze in a meadow.

EDIT:

the link above broke, so here again the reddit thread with answers and explanation of John Smith: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/2xtjc7/comment/cp3gd2a/

 

Edited April 27 by Cyninja.2954

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

58 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

James Smith

Just to be accurate, it's John Smith (like the famous economist). 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/John_Smith

Edited April 27 by Inculpatus cedo.9234

[Invoker.5462]

Are you ready to move on to greener pastures? Or will this event litterally destroy your life

[Zaraki.5784]

If you play gw2 like it's your main life, your problem isn't gw3...

[Cyninja.2954]

33 minutes ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

Just to be accurate, it's John Smith (like the famous economist). 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/John_Smith

Yeah sorry, was early 😅. I corrected the name. Ty

[SweetPotato.7456]

1 hour ago, Invoker.5462 said:

Are you ready to move on to greener pastures? Or will this event litterally destroy your life

1) How do you know it is a greener pastures? 
2) Why  would I want to start from scratch when I still have 50% of contents I haven't completed for this wonderful game  that is Guild Wars 2  
3) Depends on the guild wars 3  payment system,  will it be like GW2? will it cost me a limp and my liver? do I need to get a totally new computer system to run it? 

Seriously can't tell you right now. also you know what sold GW2 for me? probably many others too, they told me I can JUMP in GW2, that was a big changed  back than, be able to jump. What is there going to have in GW3 that we can't / don't have in GW2 aside from having to 1) spend more money 2) spend more time playing, 3) start all over again. I am on my way to complete a set of all legendary weapons. I don't think I want to start everything all over again. 4) WvW is my main most and most favorite mode, will all my commanders move to GW3? will there be a WvW that is better? if there is a better WvW, why it isn't done for GW2, what do you think the population will do? when they withheld a better wvw system from these players and sell it in a new game?

Disclaimer, all these are my speculations, no bad intention what so ever, just speculation, you asked, I speculated. 

Edited April 27 by SweetPotato.7456

[cloudsareyum.8120]

Nah. New game fatigue and I'm interested in the demon arc.  I don't want to start from scratch and am still working on stuff in this game. 

 

I don't think even major feature update could make me move lol

[xDumplinx.7983]

I absolutely would be interested in a new GW game. It would just mean I would be splitting my time between 2 GW games.

[cloudsareyum.8120]

I'm not going to worry until it happens. They need to keep the shareholders interested and the shareholders may not understand what a money farm gw2 is because it's "just another ncsoft game to them"

 

I do worry about ncsoft making stupid decisions because I played some of their previous mmos and they have a history of shutting down games and sabotaging good things. But since they bought arena net in 2002 and gw been going strong so Ig I shouldn't be that worried but I dont trust them to make stupid decisions that lose money because they don't value the western market (like shutting down gw2 even with a willing paying playerbase)

 

But I'm disinterested. I'm sticking with gw2. New game fatigue and I have other things to play if I want to start from scratch 

Edited April 27 by cloudsareyum.8120

[Manasa Devi.7958]

I'll never pick up a new MMORPG. I don’t have any interest to ever immerse mysef in very involving games again. GW2, I'll keep playing because I'm at the point where I'm OK with just playing the rather small content drops, having already done everything I want to do of what already exists in the game.

Edited April 27 by Manasa Devi.7958

[Noidea Incognito.9607]

Old Tom: "I have to ask Miss Gaming Rig. We have seen alot of ups and downs together... not just gonna ditch her partways for a new lash who is much younger, faster, stronger, bleep bleep. If it comes down to choosing between her and GW3 i will choose her. We will then grow old together, rust together in GW2 and see our young golems growup, running around inside old-gen Tyria... it will be beautifull...bleep bleep"

jokes aside; GW2 is my togo mmo.  I consider it a possibility, but most likely i wont be switching over to GW3 and i'm ok with that.

[Invoker.5462]

Ok i think i figured it out.
They're only making a gw3 to cash in on the IP
However, something tells me that interest for it in the future will be zilch - as they let gw2 decay (along with its fanbase). And i highly doubt they'll be able to scrape together enough talent under the current economic climate - people be job hoppin all the time these days.

[Gehenna.3625]

4 minutes ago, Invoker.5462 said:

Ok i think i figured it out.
They're only making a gw3 to cash in on the IP
However, something tells me that interest for it in the future will be zilch - as they let gw2 decay (along with its fanbase). And i highly doubt they'll be able to scrape together enough talent under the current economic climate - people be job hoppin all the time these days.

They did the same with GW1 and GW2 turned out to be fairly successful anyway.

[Lucy.3728]

3 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

2) Why  would I want to start from scratch when I still have 50% of contents I haven't completed for this wonderful game  that is Guild Wars 2  

I hope they write the code themselves from start to finish so they have full control and there are no excuses why some things can't be changed.

I also hope that a lot of things I liked about GW1 - that were completely forgotten or thrown away in GW2 - come back. Like a better guild hall (in GW1 the guild practically lived there, people logged in and out, met up etc... Now I only go there when I need something quick and then I forget about it until the next time), a real GvG system without WvW having to be abused for it, or that WvW is optimized so that everything finds its place there without flaming one group against the other, better competitive modes than just pure pvp like the crippled spvp here (Luxon/Kurzick competive modes; alliance battles<3), coloring weapons (for whatever reason someone came up with the stupid idea of not including this in GW2 - in a game with the nickname Fashion Wars).

And lots of other reasons.

And if you live your life in GW2 and didn't do the missing 50% of the game, you probably have a reason (stuff you don't care about) and it'll remain that way.

I don't touch raids and fractals and don't want to and won't do.

3 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

do I need to get a totally new computer system to run it?

Not at the beginning, but later on. As always. In every game that is constantly being developed further.
I don't want to play GW2 on the PC I started on.

I would definitely buy a GW3 if the philosophy remains.
But GW2 is not my whole purpose in life. It's a game to pass the time and have fun, which I can also find in other/new games.

(I didn't play GW1 after GW2 either.)

Edited April 27 by Lucy.3728

[Astralporing.1957]

13 minutes ago, Lucy.3728 said:

I hope they write the code themselves from start to finish so they have full control and there are no excuses why some things can't be changed.

Who do you think wrote GW2 code? It's primarily inhouse stuff (apart from some modules like webbrowser support that noone does on their own anymore). If anything, the new code will be worse in that regard, because they willl be using UE engine.

13 minutes ago, Lucy.3728 said:

I also hope that a lot of things I liked about GW1 - that were completely forgotten or thrown away in GW2 - come back. Like a better guild hall (in GW1 the guild practically lived there, people logged in and out, met up etc... Now I only go there when I need something quick and then I forget about it until the next time), a real GvG system without WvW having to be abused for it, or that WvW is optimized so that everything finds its place there without flaming one group against the other, better competitive modes than just pure pvp like the crippled spvp here (Luxon/Kurzick competive modes; alliance battles<3), coloring weapons (for whatever reason someone came up with the stupid idea of not including this in GW2 - in a game with the nickname Fashion Wars).

And lots of other reasons.

And if you live your life in GW2 and didn't do the missing 50% of the game, you probably have a reason (stuff you don't care about) and it'll remain that way.

I don't touch raids and fractals and don't want to and won't do.

Not at the beginning, but later on. As always. In every game that is constantly being developed further.
I don't want to play GW2 on the PC I started on.

I would definitely buy a GW3 if the philosophy remains.
But GW2 is not my whole purpose in life. It's a game to pass the time and have fun, which I can also find in other/new games.

(I didn't play GW1 after GW2 either.)

Some stuff you like will probably remain (or will get included). Some of those things however will likely not be - and the game is practically certain to include a lot of stuff you won't like. The GW philosophy will definitely not remain, because they can already seen to be ready to abandon it. Expect gear grind, for example. Expect greater emphasis on instanced content (seeing as they keep pushing it forward over and over again). Expect even greater impact of gemshop. Expect cheaper "player engagement"mechanics that rely more on grind than quality. Expect far less of a "freestyle" play (they do like to channel players towards specific maps/activities nowaday, so 100% this will be their modus operandi in GW3 as well).

Again, you might end up liking some of this stuff, but for me a lot of those things are deal breakers.

[Astralporing.1957]

35 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

They did the same with GW1 and GW2 turned out to be fairly successful anyway.

There were several succesful MMOs around that time. That was a long time ago though, and the market has been already tapped.

Notice, btw, that one of the reasons for why GW2 was succesful was that it ended up interesting for a group of players whose needs for an MMORPG were significantly distinct to what other games could provide then. And that Anet tried (quite unsuccesfully, i might add) to shift away from that group many times over since. If GW3 will be another attempt at this, it will fail - for the same reason why so far all dev attempts to push more hardcore playstyle were met with, let's say, extremely limited success.