Yes, we are going to have to kill things, that's a given. Now, will killing things naturally and then getting rewarded for it be different than only getting credit for it after you are commanded to go kill it it? We shall see.
* bad analogy alert *
So there are different ways to get a laid.
You can go to a street corner and pay some money, one and done and go on your way.
Or you can wine and dine some chick, and if you are smooth, get laid. Then you go your way, someone gets rejected, or something more could happen.
The main difference in the DE system of GW2 is that you can choose to complete an event by taking on different tasks leading to its completion. For example, in the event of the pirates raiding a town, you can choose to put out the fire, kill all the mobs or a combination of the two. I guess that 99% of the quests in the game involve killing, but also that a lot of these quests also involve doing "side"stuff to complete the goal. This is realized in the game with progress bars instead of stating the numeric progress in the ui.
Before you ask, the innovation in the design is that unlike most rpg quests are designed in a way that you only have one way to complete it. If you want to do something else, you need to complete the preceding part of the quest chain first. ANet does it differently.
Awful lot of big words to say "yes' we will have kill xx rat quests.
Those "big words" clearly went right over your head as that wasnt what the dev was saying at all. Ah well I suppose differing levels of intellect make the world a varied place
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
This shouldn't really be news to anybody. If you really thought that when ANet talked in the past about their dislike of "kill X amount of rats"-type quests that they were literally saying "killing a certain number of enemies as part of a quest or objective is bad and stupid and thus it won't be found in GW2 at all in any way" then you weren't comprehending what they were talking about.
Really it boils down to yes, there is kill xxx quests. Its all in how they wll be presenting it that will make it good or bad.
Some people wont get past the idea that its kill xxx or collect xxx. Thoes people will never fully enjoy any MMORPG. Why? because even in sandboxes you have kill XXX quests. They are just hidden as "I need 10 wolf pelts to make my leather hat" type things.
Me, I'm looking forward to seeing if GW2 can present it in a way that I dont feel like thats all I'm doing. SWTOR said they didnt have thoes quests except for bonus quests. As it turns out they didnt even do a good job of presenting it in a way that didnt feel like the basic quest. Only time will tell if GW2 will.
You enter a dungeon and are killing "x amount of mobs" but it doesn't feel like grinding because you aren't there to fulfill a quota so much as to explore and experience what is in that Dungeon.
Of course those mobs aren't necessarily going to do more than stand there, perhaps idly wander around, but the experience is different as the player is more engaged in the task at hand as opposed to just checking off a laundry list.
It's a good design.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Nice, that is a very detail view of the system. On the other hand, I like to focus on the bigger picture of how the way they are doing solves so many problems. I don't know if it's innovative, but it is genius:
1. Does anybody like to explore and kill stuff, then find a quest giver and they go "go kill 10 rats." But I just killed 100! It just happens with GW2.
2. Does anyone really like to go collect all the yellow exclamation points, go out, come back and trade in, go to next hub...repeat? Like a machine. Just going exploring in GW2, and stuff happens.
3. Chain quests are usually rare, not because developers don't like them, but because it sucks when you are out of sync with other questers. I think most of the GW2 quests are chained, but anyone can do them anytime, and get credit. Because the quest revolves around what's happening, not each individual player. Don't be so vain.
4. No need to scream "LFG for xxx quest." And then not do them because no one is interested.
5. Dailies? Just walk around, you might have the same quest repeat. But more likely, you'll end up doing some other part of the chain. No need to worry about running out of quests to do.
6. It seems to me this game is saying "Just play."
So anyway, I don't how much better this will make the game. But clearly...clearly, Anet is trying to improve anything they put into the game. Trying usually turns out better than not trying.
So this is how it goes, some DE's can be done in multiple ways, gathering,killing, objective taking, using turrets, using environnment items, destroying that nest, giving items to thr forgery, and so forth.
So in a sense you are in fact kill x get y and all that shit, the big ol difference is the simple fact that what's being said is happening I.E meaning and your told and able to play IMMERSIVELY lmao must we keep missing that or shall we all stay dumb.
Honestly in every MMO regular quests no matter how they are told can only be completed one way kill x or colllect y they don't have choices, and either(like the recent MMO) is you can kill x but that won't change shizzle other than your experience bar.
Your not even being told to kill x and y so yes they are masking it but their way of maskin it is genius sheesh, you can do literally what's being told both in the story and gameplay.
Some games give you cutscenes of ish happening but when gameplay comes up your like "These MOFOs are just standing there!!!!" I laughed on team speak when I heard this last week.
Now some events wo't have choices but don't let em happen and like Kevin Hart would say "It's about to go down."
People will then say well Warhammer and Rift did such and such ok cool story an all but can someone tell me if they were both put together an done? Like hell.
Oh and take care
/thread
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
I personally like the hole dynamic quest event system. The first time i encountered something similar to this was in warhammer online(very early when the game was just out). I liked how everyone could just come in and help, no need for grouping up and you felt like you did something with more than just your close buddies. I hope(we cannot say for sure until release and after) that Arenanet improved these to the point where they stay fun even when repeated a hundred times.
I also like the idea of getting points you can trade in for gear instead of having to fight for loot when a big chest pops up.
So yea in a sense like I said you'll end up killing X and collecting y but there is a difference in how it's [done] and the meaning and as well as the way the DE impacts, it doesn't just impact one area but even the weather effect and the environment changes and what not so there is a whole lot of difference.
One couldn't put this up and say "Hey this is exactly like Warhammer!!!!" or "Hey this looks like rifts!!!"
Now if you put em together and make that PB&J sandwhich then hey your on to something . alright that's my last tid bit hopefully...
take care .
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
He could have cut that lengthy post considerably, this would have been my suggestion.
"Look, could you people stop going around telling everyone our game won't have the standard kill quests and courier quests please, because it will. We will do our best to disguise that, but stop with all the misinformation because after playing the game for a few days everyone is going to know it was bollox and ragequit anyway and if they're not playing they can't buy items from our cash-shop (which isn't really needed and which we don't really need the income from)."
You really are strange.
A combat-based mmo which features killing stuff?! How shockingl unimaginative! Couldn't they come up with something truly innovative? Like playing musical minigames to overcome your foes? How dare ANet suggest that it is possible to have anything innovative in a game that involves killing stuff while we all know that nothing really changed in videogames since Space Invaders?! In fact every game ever made that features combat is a blatant Space Invader clone. What lying cheats!!
+1 - All games are Space Invader clones is a marvellous line!
Sounds like fail to me... 3 Part quest/event thingy. Two of which you'll never see if you do the first one. I expect when the game first releases you will only EVER see the first event as so many players will be around and always killing off the zombies for the reward.
Later on as the game gets older and players are max level and population has dropped you will ONLY see the zombie infested fort. You'll be luckky to catch phase 2, the defense....
They will have to enable achievements for doing each phase to force players to let the zombies attack, let the zombies win, and so on. Reminds me of WAR, farming "rep" by doing public quests to unlock the reward for that zone... If they didn't have that rep bar for each zone players would skip a huge majority of that content because it's rarely useful to waste time attempting an objective only to fail (and get no reward)... I say fail because population dropped so quickly in that game any new players that joined were unable to complete most of the non solo PQ's.
Sounds like fail to me... 3 Part quest/event thingy. Two of which you'll never see if you do the first one. I expect when the game first releases you will only EVER see the first event as so many players will be around and always killing off the zombies for the reward.
Later on as the game gets older and players are max level and population has dropped you will ONLY see the zombie infested fort. You'll be luckky to catch phase 2, the defense....
They will have to enable achievements for doing each phase to force players to let the zombies attack, let the zombies win, and so on. Reminds me of WAR, farming "rep" by doing public quests to unlock the reward for that zone... If they didn't have that rep bar for each zone players would skip a huge majority of that content because it's rarely useful to waste time attempting an objective only to fail (and get no reward)... I say fail because population dropped so quickly in that game any new players that joined were unable to complete most of the non solo PQ's.
You know the events scale right? In the beginning the events will scale to compensate for the hundreds of players who wil be on the map. Later on, the events will scale back down when there are not so many players...
Sounds like fail to me... 3 Part quest/event thingy. Two of which you'll never see if you do the first one. I expect when the game first releases you will only EVER see the first event as so many players will be around and always killing off the zombies for the reward.
Later on as the game gets older and players are max level and population has dropped you will ONLY see the zombie infested fort. You'll be luckky to catch phase 2, the defense....
They will have to enable achievements for doing each phase to force players to let the zombies attack, let the zombies win, and so on. Reminds me of WAR, farming "rep" by doing public quests to unlock the reward for that zone... If they didn't have that rep bar for each zone players would skip a huge majority of that content because it's rarely useful to waste time attempting an objective only to fail (and get no reward)... I say fail because population dropped so quickly in that game any new players that joined were unable to complete most of the non solo PQ's.
Are you aware that the events are going to scale? The more people go in the more difficult it will be and spawn more zombie and such.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Sounds like fail to me... 3 Part quest/event thingy. Two of which you'll never see if you do the first one. I expect when the game first releases you will only EVER see the first event as so many players will be around and always killing off the zombies for the reward.
Later on as the game gets older and players are max level and population has dropped you will ONLY see the zombie infested fort. You'll be luckky to catch phase 2, the defense....
They will have to enable achievements for doing each phase to force players to let the zombies attack, let the zombies win, and so on. Reminds me of WAR, farming "rep" by doing public quests to unlock the reward for that zone... If they didn't have that rep bar for each zone players would skip a huge majority of that content because it's rarely useful to waste time attempting an objective only to fail (and get no reward)... I say fail because population dropped so quickly in that game any new players that joined were unable to complete most of the non solo PQ's.
In addition to the event scaling points a couple others have made, the event chains also cycle through several steps in the other direction. After defeating the zombie horde, you may be asked to discover where they came from. After doing that, you may have to try and eliminate them at their point of origin. So on and so forth.
Basically, you can view dynamic events as trains that run along a linear track, which is divided up into a varying number of stages. Some tracks may be short with only 3 or 4 stages, others may be much longer having upwards of 10. As players succeed in an event chain, they push the train along the track in one direction until it reaches its end. Once that happens, players would leave the area and pursue other nearby events. After a period of time, that event cycle would start up again and begin pushing the train back. If players are busy elsewhere, it may get pushed back even farther than it was the last time you participated in the event cycle.
I agree that, early on, players will be everywhere, and most events probably will not be left alone for too long. Hopefully, events will be difficult enough that players will fail them with some frequency until they learn little secrets that help with each event, allowing those events to be pushed back to the far end of the losing side. This has been the main point I've been skeptical about so far, as in videos, it looks like even the *hard* events like Tequatl can be completed by a coordinated duo or trio of players who defend one group of turrets, resurrect the NPCs, then bombard the dragon while out of its range. In one video, even though that event is supposedly tuned to a minimum of 10 players (ie. the "scaling" begins after more than 10 players join the fight; before that, it remains scaled to 10 players even if there are fewer than 10), it looked like Total Biscuit and the one other player that was there at the time could have finished the fight easily before the time limit had his demo time not run out.
As I approach the fortress the commander runs up to me and says out loud for everyone in the area to hear that there are zombies in the local swamp, they are building up to attack his fort and someone had better do something.
I know it's not the focus of what he's talking about, but I always say that this emphasis on cooperation is the real reason to be excited about GW2. DEs provide a way for players to play with strangers in the open world, not just near them or worse, trying to avoid them. Even in the old school days of EQ, you'd have your group of 6 with everyone just sitting in a spot fighting the other groups over spawns. The idea of going around, fully cooperative with up to 10 people, using combos and rezzing to support one another, literally making you want to see other people because it makes the game more fun and rewarding...this is what I'm most looking forward to about the game.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I don't get why people are upset about having to kill stuff. I wouldn't want to play an MMO without combat.
Not many or anyone at all is upset about that, they are upset of how it's executed, in a way it's how to immerse yourself outside of the story element which brings RPG into mind, given people a choice on how to do things s is a lot better than something sounding like it has choice but in the end you an the other guy did the same, which in all breaks replayability on one character.
No one actually said it isn't kill(Course I could be wrong ) but the sheer fact of means of doing so, not mobs just standing there not doing what's being said, it's the simple stuff honstley, not one MMO has done that yet I.E Rift tried to an [extent] and War attempted to an [extent] neither tried to push those [limits].
And I can't name an MMO that was truely immersive in both story and gameplay other than one I experienced but remember that it was imersive for [me]
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Comments
Yes, we are going to have to kill things, that's a given. Now, will killing things naturally and then getting rewarded for it be different than only getting credit for it after you are commanded to go kill it it? We shall see.
* bad analogy alert *
So there are different ways to get a laid.
You can go to a street corner and pay some money, one and done and go on your way.
Or you can wine and dine some chick, and if you are smooth, get laid. Then you go your way, someone gets rejected, or something more could happen.
Which one is more fun?
just what i was thinking ..especially with invasions..if its like this then the game should be fine.
Lol, the analogy was bad, but funny nontheless.
The main difference in the DE system of GW2 is that you can choose to complete an event by taking on different tasks leading to its completion. For example, in the event of the pirates raiding a town, you can choose to put out the fire, kill all the mobs or a combination of the two. I guess that 99% of the quests in the game involve killing, but also that a lot of these quests also involve doing "side"stuff to complete the goal. This is realized in the game with progress bars instead of stating the numeric progress in the ui.
Before you ask, the innovation in the design is that unlike most rpg quests are designed in a way that you only have one way to complete it. If you want to do something else, you need to complete the preceding part of the quest chain first. ANet does it differently.
Those "big words" clearly went right over your head as that wasnt what the dev was saying at all. Ah well I suppose differing levels of intellect make the world a varied place
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
This shouldn't really be news to anybody. If you really thought that when ANet talked in the past about their dislike of "kill X amount of rats"-type quests that they were literally saying "killing a certain number of enemies as part of a quest or objective is bad and stupid and thus it won't be found in GW2 at all in any way" then you weren't comprehending what they were talking about.
Really it boils down to yes, there is kill xxx quests. Its all in how they wll be presenting it that will make it good or bad.
Some people wont get past the idea that its kill xxx or collect xxx. Thoes people will never fully enjoy any MMORPG. Why? because even in sandboxes you have kill XXX quests. They are just hidden as "I need 10 wolf pelts to make my leather hat" type things.
Me, I'm looking forward to seeing if GW2 can present it in a way that I dont feel like thats all I'm doing. SWTOR said they didnt have thoes quests except for bonus quests. As it turns out they didnt even do a good job of presenting it in a way that didnt feel like the basic quest. Only time will tell if GW2 will.
This is sort of how the Elder Scrolls games work.
You enter a dungeon and are killing "x amount of mobs" but it doesn't feel like grinding because you aren't there to fulfill a quota so much as to explore and experience what is in that Dungeon.
Of course those mobs aren't necessarily going to do more than stand there, perhaps idly wander around, but the experience is different as the player is more engaged in the task at hand as opposed to just checking off a laundry list.
It's a good design.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Nice, that is a very detail view of the system. On the other hand, I like to focus on the bigger picture of how the way they are doing solves so many problems. I don't know if it's innovative, but it is genius:
1. Does anybody like to explore and kill stuff, then find a quest giver and they go "go kill 10 rats." But I just killed 100! It just happens with GW2.
2. Does anyone really like to go collect all the yellow exclamation points, go out, come back and trade in, go to next hub...repeat? Like a machine. Just going exploring in GW2, and stuff happens.
3. Chain quests are usually rare, not because developers don't like them, but because it sucks when you are out of sync with other questers. I think most of the GW2 quests are chained, but anyone can do them anytime, and get credit. Because the quest revolves around what's happening, not each individual player. Don't be so vain.
4. No need to scream "LFG for xxx quest." And then not do them because no one is interested.
5. Dailies? Just walk around, you might have the same quest repeat. But more likely, you'll end up doing some other part of the chain. No need to worry about running out of quests to do.
6. It seems to me this game is saying "Just play."
So anyway, I don't how much better this will make the game. But clearly...clearly, Anet is trying to improve anything they put into the game. Trying usually turns out better than not trying.
So this is how it goes, some DE's can be done in multiple ways, gathering,killing, objective taking, using turrets, using environnment items, destroying that nest, giving items to thr forgery, and so forth.
So in a sense you are in fact kill x get y and all that shit, the big ol difference is the simple fact that what's being said is happening I.E meaning and your told and able to play IMMERSIVELY lmao must we keep missing that or shall we all stay dumb.
Honestly in every MMO regular quests no matter how they are told can only be completed one way kill x or colllect y they don't have choices, and either(like the recent MMO) is you can kill x but that won't change shizzle other than your experience bar.
Your not even being told to kill x and y so yes they are masking it but their way of maskin it is genius sheesh, you can do literally what's being told both in the story and gameplay.
Some games give you cutscenes of ish happening but when gameplay comes up your like "These MOFOs are just standing there!!!!" I laughed on team speak when I heard this last week.
Now some events wo't have choices but don't let em happen and like Kevin Hart would say "It's about to go down."
People will then say well Warhammer and Rift did such and such ok cool story an all but can someone tell me if they were both put together an done? Like hell.
Oh and take care
/thread
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
I personally like the hole dynamic quest event system.
The first time i encountered something similar to this was in warhammer online(very early when the game was just out). I liked how everyone could just come in and help, no need for grouping up and you felt like you did something with more than just your close buddies. I hope(we cannot say for sure until release and after) that Arenanet improved these to the point where they stay fun even when repeated a hundred times.
I also like the idea of getting points you can trade in for gear instead of having to fight for loot when a big chest pops up.
All war is deception - Sun Tzu
I was looking in another thread an Kakkzooka posted a link and after looking at it, it is a good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK1-UKx8_uc&feature=fvsr
So yea in a sense like I said you'll end up killing X and collecting y but there is a difference in how it's [done] and the meaning and as well as the way the DE impacts, it doesn't just impact one area but even the weather effect and the environment changes and what not so there is a whole lot of difference.
One couldn't put this up and say "Hey this is exactly like Warhammer!!!!" or "Hey this looks like rifts!!!"
Now if you put em together and make that PB&J sandwhich then hey your on to something . alright that's my last tid bit hopefully...
take care .
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Very nice.If the game works as say and works well then it will be one of the best games out there.
All that remains is to experience it live and see if all they say are realy fun to play.
I ve seen numerous interviews before and i ve learned not to get hyped about a game anymore.
While the things they say sound realy awesome im gonna never hold my breath till I play it.
Words are just words.Action is that matters.
+1 - All games are Space Invader clones is a marvellous line!
Sounds like fail to me... 3 Part quest/event thingy. Two of which you'll never see if you do the first one. I expect when the game first releases you will only EVER see the first event as so many players will be around and always killing off the zombies for the reward.
Later on as the game gets older and players are max level and population has dropped you will ONLY see the zombie infested fort. You'll be luckky to catch phase 2, the defense....
They will have to enable achievements for doing each phase to force players to let the zombies attack, let the zombies win, and so on. Reminds me of WAR, farming "rep" by doing public quests to unlock the reward for that zone... If they didn't have that rep bar for each zone players would skip a huge majority of that content because it's rarely useful to waste time attempting an objective only to fail (and get no reward)... I say fail because population dropped so quickly in that game any new players that joined were unable to complete most of the non solo PQ's.
You know the events scale right? In the beginning the events will scale to compensate for the hundreds of players who wil be on the map. Later on, the events will scale back down when there are not so many players...
Are you aware that the events are going to scale? The more people go in the more difficult it will be and spawn more zombie and such.
We shall be down with retardation.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
It's all about the presentation. At the base level there is only so many things you can do for a task.
They way that it appears in GW2 seems so much more organic to the world than in any other game.
In addition to the event scaling points a couple others have made, the event chains also cycle through several steps in the other direction. After defeating the zombie horde, you may be asked to discover where they came from. After doing that, you may have to try and eliminate them at their point of origin. So on and so forth.
Basically, you can view dynamic events as trains that run along a linear track, which is divided up into a varying number of stages. Some tracks may be short with only 3 or 4 stages, others may be much longer having upwards of 10. As players succeed in an event chain, they push the train along the track in one direction until it reaches its end. Once that happens, players would leave the area and pursue other nearby events. After a period of time, that event cycle would start up again and begin pushing the train back. If players are busy elsewhere, it may get pushed back even farther than it was the last time you participated in the event cycle.
I agree that, early on, players will be everywhere, and most events probably will not be left alone for too long. Hopefully, events will be difficult enough that players will fail them with some frequency until they learn little secrets that help with each event, allowing those events to be pushed back to the far end of the losing side. This has been the main point I've been skeptical about so far, as in videos, it looks like even the *hard* events like Tequatl can be completed by a coordinated duo or trio of players who defend one group of turrets, resurrect the NPCs, then bombard the dragon while out of its range. In one video, even though that event is supposedly tuned to a minimum of 10 players (ie. the "scaling" begins after more than 10 players join the fight; before that, it remains scaled to 10 players even if there are fewer than 10), it looked like Total Biscuit and the one other player that was there at the time could have finished the fight easily before the time limit had his demo time not run out.
I know it's not the focus of what he's talking about, but I always say that this emphasis on cooperation is the real reason to be excited about GW2. DEs provide a way for players to play with strangers in the open world, not just near them or worse, trying to avoid them. Even in the old school days of EQ, you'd have your group of 6 with everyone just sitting in a spot fighting the other groups over spawns. The idea of going around, fully cooperative with up to 10 people, using combos and rezzing to support one another, literally making you want to see other people because it makes the game more fun and rewarding...this is what I'm most looking forward to about the game.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I don't get why people are upset about having to kill stuff. I wouldn't want to play an MMO without combat.
Not many or anyone at all is upset about that, they are upset of how it's executed, in a way it's how to immerse yourself outside of the story element which brings RPG into mind, given people a choice on how to do things s is a lot better than something sounding like it has choice but in the end you an the other guy did the same, which in all breaks replayability on one character.
No one actually said it isn't kill(Course I could be wrong ) but the sheer fact of means of doing so, not mobs just standing there not doing what's being said, it's the simple stuff honstley, not one MMO has done that yet I.E Rift tried to an [extent] and War attempted to an [extent] neither tried to push those [limits].
And I can't name an MMO that was truely immersive in both story and gameplay other than one I experienced but remember that it was imersive for [me]
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
That's cool and all, I just think mrw0lf is being ridiculous.
Please OP stop making me drooling, I don't want to be over hyped by this game.
Seems mostly each time I read something on this game I have the feeling the devs really knows what makes a FUN mmo.