Guild wars 3

[Dithnir.4593]

I find it odd that people here seem to think a game is only worth investing time and money in if it's going to last FOREVER.

All things end. By the time GW3 is in beta we're probably about fifteen or sixteen years into GW2. If you have heavily invested time and/or money in return you've hopefully had a great time, made new friends, had some wonderful memories. It's a bargain really.

I'm thrilled by the idea of GW3. All those years of learning, new engines, tools, you name it. There are so few exciting and proper MMOs coming out I feel the market is ripe for a big hitter to do something completely fresh and set up another decade to twenty years of game.

I've stopped playing this one having spent a thousand dollars or more on it. It brought my family together to play it. We had great fun, but none of us want to be doing Octovine for another ten or twenty years. not when the devs could come up with something that's next level good.

They may well look at Path of Exile's plan to transfer over anything compatible. While POE2 started as an expansion and that may be part of the reason they can offer this, I'm sure Arenanet can do better than a Hall of Monuments for player achievements and collectibles too.

Edited April 17 by Dithnir.4593

[Yerlock.4678]

On 4/16/2024 at 9:59 PM, Cyninja.2954 said:

That's literally how most MMOs launch today: bare bones compared to their older industry competition.

Turns out: even with multiple years of development, it's very hard to compete with products which have had many years more development go into them.

You want realistic goals? Start with what most MMOs are expected to have bare minimum (a functioning campaing, some basic game modes), hope that you are in fact the target audience (seems a lot of players are hoping for a GW2.5, GW2 with just improved engine. Why would the developer remake the same game?) and finally hope for a not to predatory monetization systems in place.

There, that's pretty much your best bet for how GW3 will release if it does release. Anything beyond that is highly wishful thinking.

I like that so many posts just opt to take the most cynical pessimistic view humanly possible to easily sound smart. Watch how easy it is:

You actually think it's reasonable to hope for Gw3 to not have a predatory system? Tell me, why would they even make a new Gw game if not to cash in on a wider audience? They easily changed the styles of the games between Gw1 and Gw2, so why not Gw3? 

It's because Anet realized that all that matters now is your money, and have decided to make Gw3 to appease NCsoft execs. So even hoping that Gw3 will somehow not be "predatory" is naïve and wishful thinking. Maybe you should just enjoy the game you already have before vainly hoping that somehow Anet will make anything remotely better next time.

See how negative that was? And for what? Because anet has a track record for being predatory? Uhh well not really compared to most other big companies... not really at all.

No sub fee, f2p for the base game...

If you're worried they'll turn into another EA then sure, it's good to keep a watchful eye out for that. But to only hope or expect that their new game just steers clear of predatory practices and nothing else is total doomer. You need to have higher standards than that or might as well be happy playing in the mud. 

The goals I set out aren't hopium at all, they're totally realistic for post launch support. 

1. New Engine. This is self explanatory. There engine is inhouse spaghetti code and hard to debug. Not to mention the graphics will looks better for a new generation. Rumors are already this is what Gw3 will be made with, so start adjusting.

2. Less scope creep/ feature creep. Oh I forgot to mention an ex Anet dev mentioned this also. He said there's too much fluff and Anet shouldn't try to bite off more than they can chew. It's great advice because Gw2 did exactly that.

3. Post Launch support.  Anet made new systems attracted new fans then abandoned them (pvp/wvw/raids) because they weren't perfect and they wanted to make something else. This isn't how you foster a community post launch. Anet learned the hard way.

None of these are unrealistic, anet made good games in the past and has the talent to keep up with the competition. 

Oh and to your point that newer MMO's have a harder time competing with older ones, that's true. But I have a hunch Gw2 could keep getting soto style content even after Gw3 launches, similar to what Grinding Gear is doing with PoE and PoE2. They can support one and taper it off as they add more and more content for the next one. So stop being doomer.

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, gmmg.9210 said:

None of these are unrealistic, anet made good games in the past and has the talent to keep up with the competition. 

Huh? They made multiple games before GW2? I'm only aware of one, GW1 that is. Which other ones are there then? I'm genuinely not aware of any others Anet made.

[Kasumi.8532]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Huh? They made multiple games before GW2? I'm only aware of one, GW1 that is. Which other ones are there then? I'm genuinely not aware of any others Anet made.

They only developed GW1 and 2. Their only other project was some mobile title that never went anywhere around 2018/19, but nothing before GW2 besides GW1. Some of their founders worked at Blizzard before and were part of the development team in some of their games but Arenanet didn't exist back then (maybe gmmg means those?)

Edit: sorry, didn't see the before GW2

Edited April 18 by Xenon Z.6015

[Ashen.2907]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Huh? They made multiple games before GW2? I'm only aware of one, GW1 that is. Which other ones are there then? I'm genuinely not aware of any others Anet made.

They might be considering Prophecies, Factions and Nightfall, all stand alone games (the latter two acting as both stand alone and expansions) as multiple games.

[Biermeister.4678]

On 3/28/2024 at 9:10 AM, Cyninja.2954 said:

So will GW3 release before, with or after world restructuring is done for WvW? 🤔

GW3 or GW4 will be out before the Alliances or as they say WvW restructuring we have been waiting eight years so far  

[Astralporing.1957]

5 hours ago, gmmg.9210 said:

2. Less scope creep/ feature creep. Oh I forgot to mention an ex Anet dev mentioned this also. He said there's too much fluff and Anet shouldn't try to bite off more than they can chew. It's great advice because Gw2 did exactly that.

3. Post Launch support.  Anet made new systems attracted new fans then abandoned them (pvp/wvw/raids) because they weren't perfect and they wanted to make something else. This isn't how you foster a community post launch. Anet learned the hard way.

Where do you see them learning anything from it? Because so far i haven't seen anything like that. Quite the opposite, actually - they still keep reinventing the wheel, introducing newer and newer stuff only to abandon it later (often not even all that much later)  and move on to some other new shiny they came up with.

5 hours ago, gmmg.9210 said:

None of these are unrealistic, anet made good games in the past and has the talent to keep up with the competition. 

Oh and to your point that newer MMO's have a harder time competing with older ones, that's true. But I have a hunch Gw2 could keep getting soto style content even after Gw3 launches, similar to what Grinding Gear is doing with PoE and PoE2. They can support one and taper it off as they add more and more content for the next one. So stop being doomer.

They have made exactly two games so far, and both suffer from the issues you'd want fixed. It's less visible in GW1, because it got axed much sooner, but one could say that the very move from GW1 to GW2 would have been a result of those very flaws.

5 hours ago, gmmg.9210 said:

None of these are unrealistic, anet made good games in the past and has the talent to keep up with the competition. 

Oh and to your point that newer MMO's have a harder time competing with older ones, that's true. But I have a hunch Gw2 could keep getting soto style content even after Gw3 launches, similar to what Grinding Gear is doing with PoE and PoE2. They can support one and taper it off as they add more and more content for the next one. So stop being doomer.

Don't count on it. Keeping GW2 up would actually lower GW3's chances of survival, because it would divide the same playerbase among two titles instead of one. The only valid approach for keeping both games up would be if GW3 was not an MMORPG game.

[Cyninja.2954]

13 hours ago, gmmg.9210 said:

I like that so many posts just opt to take the most cynical pessimistic view humanly possible to easily sound smart. Watch how easy it is:

You actually think it's reasonable to hope for Gw3 to not have a predatory system? Tell me, why would they even make a new Gw game if not to cash in on a wider audience? They easily changed the styles of the games between Gw1 and Gw2, so why not Gw3?

I marked the word which you yourself decided to use: hope.

Cynical? I gave you a down to earth current state of the industry. That's called being realistic. If I was being cynical, I would have counted down the dozens of failed recent and recent past MMORPGs. The direction the industry has moved overall and how many "this game XYZ will kill this other game YZX" we have had in the past, most often accompanied by "hope" and assumptions. The focus on mobile gaming and how it affects the market, etc.

I could have gone a full on doomer cycle if I wanted to be cynical. I chose to keep it light.

Quote

 

It's because Anet realized that all that matters now is your money, and have decided to make Gw3 to appease NCsoft execs. So even hoping that Gw3 will somehow not be "predatory" is naïve and wishful thinking. Maybe you should just enjoy the game you already have before vainly hoping that somehow Anet will make anything remotely better next time.

See how negative that was? And for what? Because anet has a track record for being predatory? Uhh well not really compared to most other big companies... not really at all.

 

Negative? That's called realistic expectations. What, you think that after multiple hundreds of dollars of investment, NCSoft (or even Arenanet) are going to be happy with no increased return? Name a single industry where costs of development are not factored into the consumer price down the road. I'll wait.

"Predatory" can also be a very subjective term given it has a huge component which is tied to personal spending willingness. The game doesn't have to be "predatory" to not align with this franchises player base. As far as Guild Wars being "predatory", I'll just refer you to all the issues which part of this player base takes offense with over the years: monetized bag space, build templates, transmutation charges, additional character slots, quality of life items, cost of expansions, content locked behind expansions, and the list goes on.

Quote

 

No sub fee, f2p for the base game...

If you're worried they'll turn into another EA then sure, it's good to keep a watchful eye out for that. But to only hope or expect that their new game just steers clear of predatory practices and nothing else is total doomer. You need to have higher standards than that or might as well be happy playing in the mud. 

 

EA? You do realize there is a LARGE gap between EA and where we are at now with this product, right? No, NCSoft or Arenanet doesn't have to go the way of EA (or Activation, which have surpassed EA for years now). It be fully sufficient for them to merely move in the same direction NCSoft has on ANY of their other games (Throne and Liberty most recently) to completely screw this player base.

Now do I think they will go full on Throne of Liberty pay2win mode? I'd hope not. I do think that assuming GW3 will be "cheaper" or even similar in cost to GW2 is very delusional.

Quote

 

The goals I set out aren't hopium at all, they're totally realistic for post launch support. 

1. New Engine. This is self explanatory. There engine is inhouse spaghetti code and hard to debug. Not to mention the graphics will looks better for a new generation. Rumors are already this is what Gw3 will be made with, so start adjusting.

2. Less scope creep/ feature creep. Oh I forgot to mention an ex Anet dev mentioned this also. He said there's too much fluff and Anet shouldn't try to bite off more than they can chew. It's great advice because Gw2 did exactly that.

3. Post Launch support.  Anet made new systems attracted new fans then abandoned them (pvp/wvw/raids) because they weren't perfect and they wanted to make something else. This isn't how you foster a community post launch. Anet learned the hard way.

None of these are unrealistic, anet made good games in the past and has the talent to keep up with the competition. 

 

Some of those points are contradictory to game development, some of them are strait up contradictory to what this studio has produced the last 20 years, The rest are in no way affecting ANYTHING I mentioned. No, none of those are unrealistic but they are already on the spectrum of "this is not what we have seen so far, thus it is unlikely to be the case in the future". What was your word earlier? Hope? You can hope for whatever you want, but keeping an eye on reality and tempering expectations might keep your hopium levels a bit down.

Quote

Oh and to your point that newer MMO's have a harder time competing with older ones, that's true. But I have a hunch Gw2 could keep getting soto style content even after Gw3 launches, similar to what Grinding Gear is doing with PoE and PoE2. They can support one and taper it off as they add more and more content for the next one. So stop being doomer.

Yes, because running 2 competing products, one of which has just left a multi year long, multi million dollar expensive development cycle is a smart business decision.

Again, go and look how all of this has worked out for other MMORPGs which have had successor titles released to get an adequate feel for how this usually goes (Runescape to Runescape 2, Lineage to Lineage 2, Everquest to Everquest 2, FF11 to FF14, etc.).

Edited April 19 by Cyninja.2954

[Yerlock.4678]

On 4/18/2024 at 3:46 PM, Gehenna.3625 said:

Huh? They made multiple games before GW2? I'm only aware of one, GW1 that is. Which other ones are there then? I'm genuinely not aware of any others Anet made.

Gw1 and gw2, gw2 is ongoing but it launched in 2012.

[Yerlock.4678]

20 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Where do you see them learning anything from it? Because so far i haven't seen anything like that. Quite the opposite, actually - they still keep reinventing the wheel, introducing newer and newer stuff only to abandon it later (often not even all that much later)  and move on to some other new shiny they came up with.

Yeah that’s a good point, but they have a new Game Director leading Gw2 and he seems to be more of a fan of “iteration”. Not many more drastic changes that will reinvent the wheel will be coming down the line, and he’s championing the Soto style content. 
You might notice recently we’re getting more quality of life updates and balance is happening a bit more often in the past 1-2 years. That’s in part at least due to him.

They have a very long way to go, but my only point was that they don’t need to make the same mistakes they made in the past. And this current crew that works there might be more aware of that then many in these forums think they are.

20 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

They have made exactly two games so far, and both suffer from the issues you'd want fixed. It's less visible in GW1, because it got axed much sooner, but one could say that the very move from GW1 to GW2 would have been a result of those very flaws.

Don't count on it. Keeping GW2 up would actually lower GW3's chances of survival, because it would divide the same playerbase among two titles instead of one. The only valid approach for keeping both games up would be if GW3 was not an MMORPG game.

Times are changing man Ncsoft wants their continual growth. Like it or hate it it’ll attract customers. 
But if GW3 was made while Gw2 still got regular updates it would lessen the problem you’re speaking on. This is what Grinding Gear Games is doing with Path of Exile 2. 
It would allow them to show off the brand new shiny thing and still give love to gw2. Although it wouldn’t be anything as dramatic as the first three expacs at one time.

[Yerlock.4678]

I’m sure this will get bombarded with confused faces, but I think it’s the truth. This game is loaded with different little modes and lots of little lobbies, and it’s dividing the community into more and more subgroups that aren’t associated with one another.

In GW3 there should be less cluttering like this and less instances. Hot take but I think even raids and fractals, and even wvw should be all put into the open world map for the next game, with no loading zones between maps. Just do what New World does and let people opt in or out of wvw combat if they want to participate. It would allow everyone to mingle more together and would emphasize people meeting each other and working together to accomplish things in the same world, whether it’s wvw related stuff or pve or raid bosses of varying difficulties.

I know everyone is set in their ways after years and years of playing the way they have, but to attract new people having less instanced content and joining up more content on fewer larger maps would help out.

[Randulf.7614]

More hubs is exactly what the community asked for. repeatdely And whilst I understand the theory behind youir argument, the segregation isn't hurting the population/community in any way. If anything it's probably done more to keep people together whilst they wait. Lobbies have always been more popular. Not having them isn't going to make the game more or less attractive.

I look at Amnoon as how to do an open world hub right in a living world game like this, but it's  clear to me Arborstone, EOTN, Wizard's Tower are much more preferable and popular with players by a wide margin

I admire your spirit in wanting to bring everyone together in such a way as to break down all barriers and maybe a mythical future game may do it (and I'd be intrigued to see it done right in an MMO), but gamers tend to enjoy their segregation in MMOs. Keeping WvW, PvP and PvE separate is a strength of the game rather than a weakness

[leila.7962]

I like the variety of lobbies.. if there were fewer lobbies they would be completely crowded. Take the fractal pass for example.. Its always so crowded! I can hardly see people because they're all stacked up in front of the bank / merchant. It is a beautiful place though, but too tiny for the amount of people that wants to hang out in it. I was even thinking these days how come they never made a SAB themede lobby.. id buy it right away XD

I'd hate if LA would be the only major option of "lobby", it takes ages to load, and the aesthethic isn't much of my liking. But I do agree it can spread people too much in the future as the population may not be the same as it is today.

[SoftPup.3048]

EotN really should have been the strikes hub. Instead we have 3 or 4 different places to enter strikes from.

[Schimmi.6872]

29 minutes ago, SoftPup.3048 said:

EotN really should have been the strikes hub. Instead we have 3 or 4 different places to enter strikes from.

It should just have been made like e.g. mistlock and lionsarch, so everyone can hang out in the hub they want, but can join the same instance from this hubs.

[Sobx.1758]

Terrible take. Hubs make sense and are fine.
If you dislike instanced content, it doesn't mean "there should be less of it", you're free to simply skip it. Meanwhile, we need more of it.

Edited April 22 by Sobx.1758

[Gehenna.3625]

18 minutes ago, Schimmi.6872 said:

It should just have been made like e.g. mistlock and lionsarch, so everyone can hang out in the hub they want, but can join the same instance from this hubs.

It should be but unfortunately you need IBS, EoD and SoTo to get access to all of these strikes and I'm sure the upcoming expansion later this year will also have its own strikes. So not every player has the same access to strikes. Fractals, for example, are part of the core game, so there's no issues there. You can all join the same content from these different points. 

Strikes, however, are dependent on you having the right expansions and not everybody does. So I can imagine it'll be really confusing to have people in your party and then not being able to enter a strike because someone doesn't have a specific expansion.

[Gop.8713]

I'm fine with the number of lobbies, but it's annoying that they're all missing something, like wt doesn't have a laurel vendor or guild bank, for example. Would also like one tome to rule them all to put all those passes into . . .

[Astralporing.1957]

2 hours ago, Randulf.7614 said:

More hubs is exactly what the community asked for. repeatdely

Not quite. Community asking for options to fully develop (and maybe customize) a hub. And maybe to be able to do that to several hubs treated as alternatives. What community never asked for was to split the hub functionality among many different instances.

Case in point: no one ever asked for strikes to be split between three (and in future likely more) hubs. And ones distinct from hubs for fractals and raids, btw. And yet that's what we've got, and it's extremely likely thsi separation wil only continue with each future expansion.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

3 hours ago, SoftPup.3048 said:

EotN really should have been the strikes hub. Instead we have 3 or 4 different places to enter strikes from.

We really should be able to access all Strikes from any hub. The UI team just doesn't want to take the time to make locks that prevent you from accessing strikes you don't have expansions for.

Edited April 23 by Eloc Freidon.5692

[Cuks.8241]

17 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

It should be but unfortunately you need IBS, EoD and SoTo to get access to all of these strikes and I'm sure the upcoming expansion later this year will also have its own strikes. So not every player has the same access to strikes. Fractals, for example, are part of the core game, so there's no issues there. You can all join the same content from these different points. 

Strikes, however, are dependent on you having the right expansions and not everybody does. So I can imagine it'll be really confusing to have people in your party and then not being able to enter a strike because someone doesn't have a specific expansion.

I dont think this would be an issue. Ive played games where specific dungeons were locked behind dlcs and it was never an issue even with 1 hub for everything.

[Gehenna.3625]

6 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I dont think this would be an issue. Ive played games where specific dungeons were locked behind dlcs and it was never an issue even with 1 hub for everything.

Like MMOs? Could you give a couple of examples of the games you are referring to?

[Yerlock.4678]

On 4/22/2024 at 4:05 PM, Randulf.7614 said:

More hubs is exactly what the community asked for. repeatdely And whilst I understand the theory behind youir argument, the segregation isn't hurting the population/community in any way. If anything it's probably done more to keep people together whilst they wait. Lobbies have always been more popular. Not having them isn't going to make the game more or less attractive.

I look at Amnoon as how to do an open world hub right in a living world game like this, but it's  clear to me Arborstone, EOTN, Wizard's Tower are much more preferable and popular with players by a wide margin

I admire your spirit in wanting to bring everyone together in such a way as to break down all barriers and maybe a mythical future game may do it (and I'd be intrigued to see it done right in an MMO), but gamers tend to enjoy their segregation in MMOs. Keeping WvW, PvP and PvE separate is a strength of the game rather than a weakness

I have no idea what any of those lobbies are, because we're basically playing two different games in one. That's my problem with Gw2. It's trying to please everyone and thus not excelling at any one thing enough.

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, gmmg.9210 said:

I have no idea what any of those lobbies are, because we're basically playing two different games in one. That's my problem with Gw2. It's trying to please everyone and thus not excelling at any one thing enough.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Try being more precise?

[Ashantara.8731]

12 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Try being more precise?

I believe what they were trying to say is a general observation: for a game that has so little resources left to it, the current amount of construction sites (a.k.a. game modes and other areas that are being worked on) is just too many to deliver proper content for any of them.