Feedback talk:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps/Magic Motion Sensor Rest in Peace

Guild Wars is not a psychological thriller. If you want to crap your pants from playing a video game, try Amnesia: Dark Descent. elix Omni 01:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither is it a FPS with 21st century technology for detecting the motion of an enemy through rocks, trees, and buildings and displaying it on a radar screen. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I for one agree with this. During my recent travels over various mmo's while I await GW2, I found very few of them give you a magic "see all" radar, and it makes the game that much more enjoyable and challenging. Sadly, though, you are against a MASSIVE crowd of lazy gamers to get this changed. They hate having to put forth any effort to get the job done, hence the speed clear teams running rampant now. Very good ideas though, I hope someone reads this that has some sway in how the game develops and will implement it somehow. Nay the One and Only 20:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of support, Nay. I agree with you when you state, "Sadly, though, you are against a MASSIVE crowd of lazy gamers to get this changed." However, I think it's a chicken-or-the-egg scenario. Gamers came to expect the radar in an MMO (at least some of them) because game developers put one in. The reasons for that and the arguments pro-and-con are legion and can go back to the very beginnings of computer gaming. In the end - regardless of how we got into this situation - it will be up to game developers to lead us out of it. It will take a games developer with the courage to "buck the trend" and truly re-invent computer MMORPGs. ArenaNet - though I applaud them in taking the first tentative steps in that direction with their "MMO Manifesto" - doesn't go far enough, in my opinion (yet). But they're the only ones at present who I feel would have any chance of actually pulling it off. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 02:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats what updates are for right? lol Or just GW3 hehe Although something I just realized, with the "new technology" in GW2 like the guns and metalworks and such of the charr and crazy asuran innovations, GW2 would be the ideal place for such a radar. Still, I'd rather it be gone and I'll continue to silently protest it as I play :p Nay the One and Only 05:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying. I remember the first real video game I played was Tombraider I. It had a lot of those thrills of the unkown. I was very young and had to stop in Atlantis cause the tension was too high. Took me several years till I was brave enough to enter again and finish it. I didn't have that kind of feeling during the prize moa bird though. Personally I play GW for relaxing. I don't want to be forced to this thrill all the time. But then again, I wouldn't mind to have certain area's (dungeon's perhaps) where it could be the way you are describing. So when I want to feel the thrill I go there (and be rewarded more highly for my bravery off course) and when not I stay out of those dark places. Rumian 09:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Anet seems to already be de-emphasizing the role of the interface, including the compass. Their philosophy is that players should pay attention to the battle, not the interface. Dots on the compass are smaller and more difficult to see, making it less useful as a magic motion sensor. Also, from what I have seen of gameplay, you won't have groups of enemies milling about for no reason like you did in GW1. Enemies will be part of events, making the use of radar for aggro management kind of a non issue. Of course, if it's anything like GW1, you could always just remove your compass entirely. --Silverdawn 20:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Anet's de-emphasizing the role of the interface. I'd just like to see it taken a bit further to the point where the player's focus is entirely "in" the game rather than watching an interface. If you see an enemy, it should be because the enemy is there in the game world right in front of you to be seen; not because you see a dot on a radar (even if you can't actually see the enemy because it's being obstructed by some object). My opinion is this leads to a heightened sense of awareness of what's happening in the game which, in turn, leads to a more engaging gaming experience.

Though I know the compass can be turned off, that penalizes any player who does so because the game is designed from the ground up to be dependent on using the compass/radar interface for navigation, target acquisition, combat strategy, etc. I'd prefer a more WYSIWYG interface, so to speak. I want to hunt down a monster because I saw a slight movement of foliage which permitted me to accurately guess its location, I want to pursue a fleeing enemy on the basis of its tracks and other tell-tale signs of its passage, I want to be able to sneak past some guards because I carefully chose a path with obstructions and elevation changes that kept me out of their line of vision, I want to creep up on an unsuspecting enemy who doesn't even know I'm there, I want that in-the-nick-of-time defensive save because I caught a glimpse of motion in my peripheral vision right before an ambushing enemy struck, I want to be chasing an enemy down a dungeon corridor only to turn a corner and be surprised by 20 of his allies (or vice versa), etc., etc. Those kinds of interactions and experiences aren't possible in the presence of the all-seeing-God's-eye-view of the magic motion sensor. But it's good to hear that - at the very least - we won't have groups of enemies with the collective IQ of a rock milling around for no good reason. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 00:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You want an action adventure game, not an MMO. elix Omni 03:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I want an MMO with elements of action-adventure in it. Or, more precisely, I want an MMO wherein my actions and skill in playing the game determine the outcome; not contrivances such as compasses, radar, and motion sensors. With ArenaNet's move towards more visceral combat in which there is greater involvement of the player in the actions of your character in that combat, they are already demonstrating that it is possible to include more elements of action-adventure in an MMO RPG than has previously been done. I just want to see that concept taken beyond mere combat and extended to the entire game. My original suggestion is just one of many ways in which this could be accomplished.

Furthermore, there's nothing about a game being an MMO that automatically precludes action-adventure elements from being included in it. Such a restriction is more a function of the historical limitations of computers such that you couldn't create an all-encompassing game because the processing power didn't exist to do so. With the advent of ever-more powerful home computers, developers are now able to add elements to their games they previously had to leave out. We will begin to see more games developed in which the heretofore artificial boundaries of the "genre" will be dispensed with or - at the very least - merged together into a more wholistic gaming experience. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, I remember me playing Oblivion. I entered a dungeon and in front of me was this small passage, I saw a couple of undead and started killing them. I thought I was done, so I went in to pick up the arrows I fired off. I took them turned around and stood face to face with a zombie!! It scared the crap out of me. It was awesome, but this won't happend in a game wich has an indicating radar that show everything, and is'nt this what a rpg game is about, exp. a situation that is to dangerous or just impossible to experience in real life.

How about a compromise?

What about an item that could display the locations of unseen enemies? Something that takes some time to pull out, or maybe to warm up or whatnot – this way, a player in a particularly hazardous area may elect to take a slower, more cautious approach to avoid being blindsided and subsequently molywhopped.
In one of my own games, I incorporated a "magic radar". It was done well, in my own humble opinion, and added to gameplay rather than detracting from it because the compass, itself, was a deep system – for example, my favourite element was a particular sort of foe that only *barely* appeared on the compass: though it was visible to everyone, it was only apparent to the player specifically looking for it.
In that vein, one part of the suggestion doesn't sit well with me – I don't think that telltale signs should become more apparent for "seasoned" players. Instead, I think that they should be equally obvious to everyone, but subtle enough that only a wary player should notice them. Even if an inexperienced player did notice a sign, they still wouldn't know what it was; this way, the player becomes actually experienced, rather than filling up a green bar with a number attached to it.
But that's just my two cents. — Raine Valen 1:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions. As for the telltale signs, my intent is not to have any kind of apparent measurement of one's progress in becoming more aware in a particular environment. I do not want to substitute the radar with a green bar. Otherwise, we're back to watching an interface rather than the game; and that's exactly the opposite of my intent. I want players watching the main game window; not a half-a-dozen mini-spreadsheets, widgets, and gadgets on the margins of that window. My suggested mechanics would all be invisible to the player; it just happens in the abscence of any visible measuring device (green bars, etc.). Apologies if I didn't make that clear.

Going back to the example of a game character who's familiar with a forest environment finding themselves in a desert. The first time through, it's all new to them. Thus, the telltale signs of a monster's presence will not even appear on screen for them. With each repeated passing through that desert, the telltale signs will become increasingly more detailed on their screen. Eventually, enough detail is revealed that it registers on their optic nerves (IF they're paying attention).

Try tracking a wild animal through the wilderness. If you have no experience doing so, you wouldn't even know where to know to begin. Someone who's familiar with that environment and the behaviors of the native animals of that environment? It's as plain to them as a tractor-trailer plowing through the front door of your home. What do you mean you can't see that broken twig indicating the passage of a woodchuck at 100 yards? Can't you see it? It's RIGHT THERE! And though this may sound ridiculous, this is absolutely true-to-life. There are people THAT attuned to a particular environment that what to you and me are pratically invisible signs are screaming out to them.

The beauty of my suggested system is it actually connects with real life. The player who is simultaneously chatting with people on their friends' list in Facebook, listening to music, and conversing on their cellphone while also playing the game are going to miss the clues that there's a monster in the area because they are otherwise too distracted from what's happening in the game. They're on sensory overload and don't have enough neurons left over to devote sufficient focus to the game to catch the telltale signs. Though that sounds flippant, it is not intended as such. My education, training, and profession are in the medical field. I mean it in the very literal sense that there are only so many neurons available in the human brain to devote to a specific task. Once you reach that limit...you've reached the limit.

Conversely, the player who is immersing themselves in the game will pick up on the telltale signs because their focus is in the game (more neurons being devoted to the task at hand). In both cases, the ability to detect an enemy's presence is dictated by how focused the player is on playing the game as opposed to an artificial contrivance such as a radar alerting you to an enemy's presence by showing a bunch of screaming red dots on a compass. In the former case, the player has made a conscious choice not to pay attention to the game; c'est la vie. In the latter case, the player who is remaining focused on the gaming experience is rewarded by not being ambushed and killed.

In both cases, the telltale signs are there and anyone who is paying attention to the game will pick up on them. And that's exactly my point. The more you draw players in, the more you make them have to pay attention to what is going on within the game world, the more neurons in their brain you engage, then the more immersive (and, I would argue, rewarding) is the gaming experience. When you spoon feed players with a bunch of crutches and assistive devices, they become lazy and no longer have to make any significant effort to play the game. My goal is to make players have to actually invest some degree of effort and focus in playing the game rather than treating it as just something to take up time until they have to go do something else.

We've reached the point in computing and graphics power that we no longer have to rely on artificial contrivances as substitutes for "real" experiences. There was a time when what you saw on a computer screen was just not detailed enough to click with your organic brain. Enter radars, and compasses, and all manner of other artifical devices to compensate for the shortcomings of computers graphics. But we've finally reached the point where what you see on a screen can very, very closely emulate real life. Thus there is no longer a need for the artifical devices to assist you in leveling the playing field. What you see on screen is of sufficient detail and realism that we no longer need the addition of little red dots as a reminder that, "Oh, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed...there's an enemy in the area." We can SEE the enemy on our main screen; we no longer need the radar to inform us of this fact. But it remains as a legacy artifact from earlier gaming days even though it has outlived its usefullness (and, in my opinion, is now actually detracting from the gaming experience).

I realize that in this day and age, being expected to make an effort is frowned upon. But trust me; it DOES have its rewards.

P.S. I'd be really interested in seeing how you implemented your compass system, Raine. Any chance that I can test out your game? Guild Wars 3 perhaps 05:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"In both cases, the telltale signs are there and anyone who is paying attention to the game will pick up on them."

This is ideal. The signs are there, waiting to be read by someone familiar with the language.

"Try tracking a wild animal through the wilderness. If you have no experience doing so, you wouldn't even know where to know to begin."

Indeed: the same signs that the seasoned hunter looks for are still there; you just have no idea what they are, where to look, or what they mean. Regardless, the signs are still there; it's just in a language that you are oblivious to.

"The first time through, it's all new to them. Thus, the telltale signs of a monster's presence will not even appear on screen for them."

But this, I don't like – if the forest is new to you, the signs of what is happening will still be present; you simply will not recognize them. Accordingly, those signs should still be present in game – the players unfamiliar with a clime simply won't notice them. — Raine Valen 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My compass was part of an unfinished project, so I scrapped it when I changed laptops (like 5 years ago, herp).

That being said, I can still tell you how it worked and why it's awesome.

First, what it displayed didn't always correlate with what was on the screen. For example, you could use a heat-aware compass (or, as was the case, a heat-tracking mode of the same compass) to track heat signatures – even in complete darkness. At the same time, though, a foe that didn't radiate much heat (due to being, say, underground or using propulsion not based on combustion) woudn't appear at all on that display.

Secondly, even when things did appear, they didn't always appear obviously – their intensity on the display correlated with the intensity that they were emitting the signals by which they were being tracked. For example, a compass that tracks motion would only dimly display slowly-moving foe, and would not display a stationary foe at all.

The compass also had a couple of nifty features that weren't apparent on the game screen. For example, it could display the blast radius of ordinance before detonation. Keep in mind that a seasoned player could recognize a familiar projectile and determine its impact before it hit; this feature simply allowed them to do it at a glance and with unfamiliar projectiles, as well.

But perhaps the most important aspect of the compass was that it wasn't universal – it was an option to equip, and equipping it meant that there were other equally-valuable things that couldn't be equipped.

It was pretty cool beans. — Raine Valen 17:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"The first time through, it's all new to them. Thus, the telltale signs of a monster's presence will not even appear on screen for them."

"But this, I don't like – if the forest is new to you, the signs of what is happening will still be present; you simply will not recognize them. Accordingly, those signs should still be present in game – the players unfamiliar with a clime simply won't notice them."

I realize on first read this appears I'm contradicting myself. The reason for that is there is an assumption I made behind the scenes without explaining it in my original post. That assumption is that - though I speak of computer graphics having advanced significantly - I still don't feel they are so advanced now that they can 100% substitute for real life (close, but still not quite).

In an actual forest, you are absolutely right; the telltale signs are there whether you see them or not. It's just that the density of visual stimuli is so great that they still remain hidden from the inexperienced (as well as not knowing what to look for in the first place). On a computer screen - despite the fantastic advancements that have been made - we're still not quite at the point (in my opinion, anyway) that we can create a world so densely and richly detailed that you can display a monster's telltale sign in an obvious enough manner to be seen by those who've travelled this way numerous times while simultaneously keeping it subtle enough to remain hidden from a player new to that area. There will just be too much artifacting, jaggies, texture boundary shift, incongruity with other surrounding environmental objects, etc. that it will stick out as too obvious even to the inexperienced.

So my attempt to address this situation was to hide it completely from the player on their first pass through. This in an effort to capture the same experience one would have in the real world of not being aware of a telltale sign of an animal's presence or passing on first exposure to that environment. In the real world, as you correctly state, it still exists whether you're aware of it or not. In the virtual world - with its lower resolution and less density of detail - any sign at all (even a subtle, blurry one) will potentially be obvious on first exposure, thus killing that first time experience/surprise factor.

I'm just trying to figure out ways to fool human perception inside a virtual world in an attempt to recreate a mood or experience one might have in the real world. Because one is real and the other is not, the means for achieving this goal will not be identical. In the real world, the signs are there all the time; we just aren't aware of them. In the virtual world, if we use the same mechanic (the sign is always there), we don't necessarily recreate the same experience (players missing the sign) due to the limitations and factors described earlier. I agree, though, there may not be an ideal method for implementing my suggestion.

On another note, I like your description of the compass mechanic you created. Sorry to hear it was lost. That kind of motion detector sounds ideal for a FPS. With the varying degrees of sensitivity and specificity to a particular dynamic (heat, motion, etc.), it sounds like it allowed for some interesting strategy and tactics. Though much more simplistic than your's, it reminds me of the old Mechwarrior series in which you could shut down your 'Mech to hide yourself from enemy radar. Though only an on-off type of option, just that one mechanic alone added new tactics to one's arsenal in that game; allowing for such things as ambushes, distractions, and infiltration. With your variations, it permits for an even greater number of interesting strategies and tactics. That is a much better implementation than the all-seeing-eye motion detector we have in the GW world. That type kills strategy, tactics, and immersion while your's adds to it. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't quite have time to read all of the above discussion, so forgive me if this has been said, but I was under the impression that the compass as we know it in GW1 will not be in GW2. At least in regards to enemy possitions. Perhaps I'm incorrect. I do know that Anet wants players to pay more attention to the environment, and less attention to the UI, and that'd prolly include the compass.--Will Greyhawk 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

---

OP Update 9-01-2011

Watching GW2 demos from Comic Con and Pax Prime, there do not appear to be any Little Red Dots on the radar/compass to indicate enemy positions. YAY!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you ArenaNet! Guild Wars 3 perhaps 20:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)