User:Armond/Survey

Edit this section as you see fit. Treat it as a talk page, though, so don't just delete someone else's comments, etc. Please sign, too.

You wanna know what this is for? Too bad. Give me a few years to get the .txt's into a reasonable beta and I'll let you know. Meanwhile, adding here will help a lot. Seriously.

If you see something that someone posts that you agree to, sign as a sub-numbering of it. (Add ##~~~~ to the line of code immediately below it.) Obviously, feel free to add a comment if you want.

Good points about Guild Wars

State them here. Details are your friend.

1. Team focus. Maybe not 8-man teams specifically, but team focus is awesome for the players. -- Armond Warblade 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. I agree. If we were required to play with 7 other real people I wouldn't have liked it, but the need to be part of a team (be it with AI or with real people) add an entire new dept to the game. Support professions would have been almost impossible if the game were meant to be played solo, IMO. Erasculio 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
   2. One of the best points about GW, especially during prophecies. Both in PvE and PvP, GW is truely a team game. If it wasn't for the complete lack of a good "party finding tool" (party search only partially alleviated that), I would oppose Heroes for exactly this reason, taking away from the team aspect. --Xeeron 11:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

   I disagree completely with this. I hate the team dependence. 100% of the time I would rather either fight alone(with a different level implementation, I'm level 100 and everything else is level 20-24) or use henchmen because most human players are BAD at the game, and there are plenty of idiots and griefers. Teaming up promotes elitism and slows everyone down as you cannot do some missions without a human team. Good human teams are becoming rarer and rarer. I don't have time to wait for my friends to log on. Team-based gameplay promotes a socialistic implementation where everyone shares everything, including failure. If there's an idiot on your team in PvP, your entire team is suck due to one person, and you cannot do anything about it. If someone leaves, tough. If you leave, you get dishonor. If I see this type of crap in Build Wars 2, I'm not getting it. There's a reason why people are requesting the right to bring 7 heroes, 99% of players are bad.

2. PvE-wise, the ability of changing the world. In some other MMORPGs, if you, say, go rescue a NPC, that NPC will give you a random excuse to stay within his cell, so other people may rescue him. In Guild Wars, if you go rescue a NPC, you may find him outside his cell the next time you go there. A small feature, but it changes the focus of the game from being one more among a million players to being the force driving the world. Erasculio 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Not saying you're wrong, but how is team dependence related to permanent world changes due to the players' actions? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

   Because it's obviously in the wrong place. Sorry about misplacing it.

3. Heroes. They were implemented really well, barring the broken reflexes, and they added a new degree of tactical play into the game. -- NUKLEAR IIV 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. Erasculio 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
   2. Agreed, although heroes made the game simpler and removed a need of grouping in some cases they are still a very interesting and good addition to the game. --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 12:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
   3. It's exactly this that still makes Nightfall my favorite campaign to date.- Vanguard 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Not as much grinding as other games like Runescape and Lord of the Rings Online. I liked the fact that the max level was only level 20 and it took somewhat more skill to play the game in a way. — ク Eloc 貢 02:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   You are correct when it comes to Runescape. However, the most efficient and recommended way to level in LOTR Online is to do quests, not grind. There are so many quests that really, all the grinding you need to do is generic (kill x number of monster or collect special items from x type of monster) quests, kill mobs for leather (a crafting material only found off animal corpses), for loot drops to sell if you need money, and for titles. These types of scenarios are found throughout most, if not all, MMO games. Each scenario mentioned for LOTR Online is also found within Guild Wars, e.g. grinding for titles, killing mobs for crafting materials and dropped loot to sell, and quests to kill x number of mobs. — Gares 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   IMO, I disagree about the "quests to kill x number of mobs". Wherever I read a review for a MMORPG (be it LotRO, Age of Conan, or whatever), the reviewer always says "...and we get the usual quests, kill x enemies or take package to NPC X". However, those kinds of quests are extremely rare in Guild Wars - the only quests that consist in "kill x mobs", as far as I remember, are the quest to kill Wardens in the Echovald Forest (and that's a quest easily done when walking from one outpost to the other, without any kind of grind) and the Forgotten quest ("In Service of Revenge" or something along those lines) to kill Margonites, another one that may be done without any kind of grind given how the late game is filled with Margonites.

   Likewise, quests to "collect special items from x type of monster" are fortunately uncommon - I can only remember two of those, one for Destroyer Cores and the other for the Monolith drops. "FedEx" quests are even mocked in the Factions quest to give Elonian mirrors to poor people.

   That's, IMO, one of the greatest points of Guild Wars: the quests aren't generic stuff. Prophecies has a lot of quests to set the mood of the game (from the innocent quests in Pre Searing Ascalon, to the bitter quests in Post Searing), Factions has a lot of quests with very good writting (the ones in the Jade Sea are very cool, IMO), and Nightfall has plenty of unusual quests (the "treasure hunt" one, for example). All other MMORPGs I have heard of are different - they focus not on the quest itself, but rather on the reward, so players are expected to do quests not because they're fun, but rather because they want to level up and questing is often the faster way. In GW, in other hand, given how most quests offer little reward, they have to attract players by being fun.

   That is how I think GW has less grind than many other games. Do we have to worry about generic quests? Not really. Do we have to worry about having to kill x enemies mobs that only spawn in a small area, with said area filled with other players who are also trying to kill those same enemies? Nope. Do we have to waste time going from place A to place B? Nope, instant map travel. Do we have to grind for mounts in other to waste slightly less time going from place C to place D? Again, nope, instant travel. Do we have to spend time looking for crafting materials scattered all over the world (like collecting herbs)? No, all crafting materials are available from traders, the great majority of them (anything other than Ectos, Obsidian Shards and Onyx Gemstones) having very low prices.

   (Armond, as far as your reseach goes, are we allowed to disagree with other people's point like this, or would you rather have us just pointing when we agree with someone? I'm asking because some of those discussions could become rather long, and distract people from your original goal.) Erasculio 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I can't speak for Armond, but the views of players voicing their opinions of other MMOs in regards to Guild Wars seems relevant. I, for one, like a good crafting system and participated in created one for Neverwinter Nights. An unfortunate, but realistic part of any good crafting system is finding the materials scattered throughout the game world. In addition, having a merchant have a limited supply of the same materials. You wouldn't think a merchant would be sitting on an infinite supply of copper ore, for example.

   There are quite a few more kill x number of mob quests than you mentioned. It's a daunting task, but when you get the time, go through the quest list for all the campaigns in Guild Wars and count them up. If that is too much, just count the number of quests in Ascalon (Pre-Searing) where you either have to kill x number, kill x amount of mobs until a certain item drops, or carry x item to a certain NPC. In additional, successful other MMOs compensate from many players going after the same mobs usually with a quick spawn rate.

   There are some unique quests in Guild Wars as well as others, such as WoW and LOTR Online. If you don't keep the interest of the player and you support a PvE side of your game, you definitely want to keep the quests varied as much as you can. Guild Wars' quests from what I've experienced, do have more of a lighter side than in most other MMOs.

   Map travel is a great tool. Me and another were talking about it yesterday while playing LOTR. While convenient, it is unrealistic. But I will admit at times that I wish I had instant travel with some games. — Gares 15:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I don't mind if you guys disagree - it brings up new and interesting points. -- Armond Warblade 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

   I forget how to indent but the lack of grind kind of relates to how accessible things are, which is something I love about GW. (IDK if this should go in its own section you can move it if you want). You don't need to grind for equipment because the max stuff is there cheap. You don't have to run a million miles everywhere cause of frequent outposts and instancing. You dont have to wait half an hour to log in. The stuff you need to be able to play at a competent level is just there. If you want to do the epeen I has epics loots thing then you *can* and get the fancy shit. Basically you don't have to waste as much time as you would playing other MMOs. - Bex 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Ability to move interface windows around. Very much missed in other games. -- Armond Warblade 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. Yes. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
   2. Reminds me of Lineage II. — ク Eloc 貢 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Guild Wars is a highly strategic game, skillbars limited to 8 skills make you think. --Super Igor 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

   Make you think about which premade gimmick to use...not much strategy in pvp anyway. ~Shard (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   Ya sure premade gimmicks fall from the sky, lol dont suck, I have seen your balance suggestions already... --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   zzz npa + Igor doesn't know what he's talking about again. Be constructive or get off my userpage. -- Armond Warblade 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Or you dont know what you are talking about, troll. :P --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 12:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Imho, the cornerstone of what makes GW good. --Xeeron 11:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

7. Amazing graphics engine. Low spec computers can still play at max settings easily. ~Shard (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   I theorize that this is due in no small part to the fact that friggin everything is instanced, greatly reducing the amount of clutter any one person needs to load and communicate. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

8. A coherent and compelling story. Most other MMO's just have a few quest chains strung together. In GW it really makes you feel like you're doing something truly epic. Krelus Derian 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

   Although I agree, I have to raise a point. There are some places where the storyline is a little bit forced; for instance, when Vizhier Kilhbron sends you to the Desert for Ascension... what was he trying to accomplish? (Maybe I misunderstood the story, but he basically sends the player to get the means to actually kill him at the end). I kinda want the Developers to give us an explanation for this. Maybe he was going to do some move that needed the heroes away from him, to avoid any interference? In any case, the storyline is compelling, and the Mission system (That I'm not sure any other game uses) is a cool way of presenting that to the player. Large 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

   my best guess on his reason would be that since he wanted to control the titans, he needed A) the scepter of orr, which the player had gotten and given to him and B) gain access to the bloodstone in abaddon's mouth where the titans were sealed, but ofc the white mantle and mursaat had made their base there and he couldn't do it with the man/undead power he had, but knowing the flame seeker prophecies, where the chosen one is suppose to defeat the mursaat. Thinking this chosen was the player, he had them ascend in the desert, defeated the white mantle in the shiverpeaks, and the mursaat at there base in the ring of fire. all that to get at the Door of Komalie and at titans.

   and i would agree with derian, that some stories in this game can draw you in if you get interested in them, like the Drought story line in kourna where even before you had to do the mission, you had the option to do some quest which would have thicken the plot for that mission.--Metal Sazz 23:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

9. All 4 of the Guild Wars installments have amazing soundtracks. (If you have them on when you play) You can easily become immersed in the game.--Zal 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Funny how nobody brought up something like this, c'mon. No monthly fee! Large 08:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    I can see where you're coming from, but there's also a lot of arguments out there that no monthly fee is bad for the game because it means the devs have no real incentive to keep improving the game. -- Armond Warblade 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Although you might be completely right, I like to believe (Based on the posts by some of the wiki-active Devs) that they do it because they love to do it. It's been, what, 3 years? I still enjoy Prophecies (In fact, that's the campaign I love the most) and I still think they did a great job and they still throw out nice ideas and addons. I think that if during 3 years they have improved it (I mean what I say), they don't need an incentive. But, perhaps, I'm wrong, and oh Dwayna, silly me for being so naive. Large 00:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Having wasted much money on a fee based game that went downhill and which I did not play much in the last years, I fully agree. --Xeeron 11:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad points about Guild Wars

1. Balance, particularly blockway and meleedamageway. Don't give Knights and Crusaders unconditional +35% damage, make Arcanists choose between Enchantment and Arcanism, etc. -- Armond Warblade 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. Erasculio 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Lack of foresight. Feels like Arena Net's meetings are just a matter of "Ok, let's do this, it's cool! If it causes any problems we'll deal with them later!". Some ideas were obviously going to fail: adding 25 extra skills for each old profession and 2 new professions per expansion would, sooner or later, make the game crumble on its own complexity. Supporting Factions' professions in Nightfall would force Arena Net to support every profession in every expansion, so their work would grow almost exponentially chapter after chapter. Not keeping track of old events would, eventually, lead to players being angry at how some of the things got lost (see the Zaishen key title, that wasn't retroative; the Hall of Monuments statues for defeating the Elite Missions; etc). And so on. Some more planning before introducing new content would have really helped the game. Erasculio 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. Actually, I quite like the fact that GW is a giant laboratory, even Dev-wise. :P They obviously used GW as a learning tool for GW2.
3. Losing the control. They added around 1000 skills after three expansions, 4 professions, two new weapons, lots of pve areas, broken skills, and a new pvp format. It kinda got out of hand. They should've knew where to draw the line. -- NUKLEAR IIV 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. Erasculio 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
   2. They noticed after the big backslash following NF (one of the good points about their community relations team) and moved in a different direction with EotN, but, yes, they should have known that the combination of powercreep and growing complexity would hurt the game in the end. --Xeeron 11:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Simply not fair anymore,anyone with prophecies+factions would never be able to do H/H thunderkeep,while someone with nightfall+eotn can easily do it.Oni 13:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
5. They are going to make a guildwars 2 and won't let you take much of anything from guildwars to it. And that's all time wasted on guildwars. Halogod35 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It annoys me when people say this. ANet are making a sequel, not a new campaign. GW2 is going to be a completely different game with different mechanics, professions, and races, and being pissed that you can't take your GW1 character to GW2 is like being pissed you can't take your WoW character to GW2. I think it's really great that ANet decided to allow us to transfer any achievements from GW1 to GW2 -- because those achivements are what all that "wasted time" was for. (God forbid anybody actually plays the game because they enjoy it!) --Mme. Donelle 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Activity. Get the campaign. Beat it. Master it. Own it. Now what? Still a year till GW2. There's nothing keeping players. I used to be addicted to GW, now I'm lucky to fire it up once a week. Calor 01:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I love when a character gains a level in any game, but in Guild Wars, it takes me, on average, less than a weekend to get a character to max level. After that, it's farming for new armor sets, greens, titles, PvP, start another character, grinding for gold, or playing another game until a major update or an expansion comes out with new content. — Gares 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Disregard for community. There were two really good updates that took the community into consideration: Template Saving and Observer Mode, the latter of which became a degenerate way to steal builds. Everything else was added without thought, without a goal, and almost always without testing. Nightfall should have been called "Game in which the players find the bugs and we won't fix most of them until after GW2 comes out anyway." Anet rarely reads forums, and even when they do, they don't read the right topics. Heroes' Ascent is proof enough Anet doesn't listen to players. ~Shard (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   I'd stick that under the good bits section too, because tbh, GW has a pretty stupid community (or the stupid part is just the most vocal, I dunno). Of course, you need a competent game staff to make completely ignoring the userbase a good thing. --76.25.197.215 09:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Gimmicks. In other MMO's the combat isn't quite as interconnected and diverse, so UBAHBUILDS aren't really a big issue and are pretty easy to balance out. Guild Wars has a truly insane number of skills and an even more insane number of combinations. I love the combinations. I do not love the unfortunate by-product of said depth. Ergo, I do not enjoy being on the receiving end of a scythe ranger who's escaping me to death. Krelus Derian 04:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

   "Escaping me to death" <-- why I uninstalled. But yeah, insane number of skills leads to horrible balance, got it. -- Armond Warblade 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Testing( althought thay are only six in the QA team from what they say ):
   

   A: - Make weapons mods and declare months after "how funny, we just discovered it does nothing". hmmmm, k... are there any other funny things we should be aware of ?
   

   B: - Make time consuming areas and wait for the players to test it for you so that if the end chest doesnt spawn, well never mind, you did not spent too much time on this. - Yseron - 86.209.71.24 18:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
   

6. Honnesty:
   

   A: - Pretend that everything is fine and that there is nothing to fear against whatever threat the player is bringing to your attention: Jade Quarry, Ursan Blessing ( our stats teached us that.... <- this statement still make me laugh ), alliance battles exploits, leeching ( for this one they finally admited there was a problem but and reacted several months after )...

   B: - Tell me that it's not because GW2 is in developpement that you wont have time for important gw updates, using other wiki users as a shield, and once everyone forgot, tell everyone that you wont be doing any important update because GW2 is in developpement - Yseron - 86.209.71.24 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Poor PvE balance. Certain classes like Necromancers (Minion Master or Spiteful Spirit builds) and imbagons are extremely effective in PvE, while most other classes are far less effective and some are outright bad choices to take except for specialized uses. This isn't even a millions of skills issue, it was present from the very beginning. -- Binary 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Poor dual class support. The secondary class is almost always limited to utility, and only in very rare cases can it do anything damage based. The firestorm ranger is a great example of what people think would be a neat idea, and it's completely crippled by the attribute system. The rare times that a dual class does work really well (Fast cast me/e's) it gets nerfed. -- Binary 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I would argue that the secondary profession should be used for small skill bonuses, e.g. Shock Axe, Mending Touch on any ranger, GoLE/Channeling monks, etc. I'm actually considering a sort of mixed skill system - you have a certain number of skills you can always use, similar to WoW/Diablo/Defend Your Castle/etc, and you also have a few (maybe three, maybe as many as half a dozen) that you can change out in the equivalent of GW's towns. The "unchangeable" skills would be the things that define a class (such as Apply Poison, Guardian, whatever attack skills an Assassin-esque class would use, etc), while the other bar would contain skills that define a role - such as Shock on a Warrior, or (as a completely different example) party heal + strong res + party defense skill (aegis-style) + another party heal + support skill (splinter weapon/innervate/etc) for a group healer, vs quick heal + small prot + powerful heal + infuse/lay on hands + some utility-type thing for a PvP healer (or a healer for situations where only one guy is likely to take damage at any point in time). -- Armond Warblade 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   I would argue the opposite. Not enough viable ways to dual class. I like how there are many ways to use the secondary class as more than just 1 or 2 utility functions. But somehow balance should also be adjusted so that we don't get too many of the broken builds where a class is generally better as a secondary than as a primary. Up to equal, but not exceeding. -- Alaris 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

9. Prophecies. Long, Drawn out, Terrible. Further Reading on this opinion.- Vanguard 03:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
10. No in built communications Teamspeak/Ventrilo~~Ivy
11. I would like to add that my least favorite part of Guild Wars is, in fact, its completely Unpleasable Fanbase. Whenever there is an update, They Changed It Now It Sucks. When nothing changes at all, It's The Same Now It Sucks. Don't forget to call the WHAAAAMbulance because it's Ruined FOREVER on about a weekly basis. Green Arrow 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    This is not something a developer can change, outside not putting the game in the ridiculous position Guild Wars is now in. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

    You never said that it had to be something that the developers could change. Green Arrow 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points about other games

Any game you like. Providing links is good. I'll research it if need be, even if it's some Atari game no one's ever heard of.

1. Fire Emblem's experience system was neat, but difficult to code, and level 39s requiring just as much experience to get their last level as a level 1 getting his first is gonna seem weird. -- Armond Warblade 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Dawn of War's atmosphere was amazing. Everything, from the fanatic quotes on all the menus, the bloody animations (it's amazing watching the Chaos demon ripping an enemy's still alive body from its axe) to the voice acting give the impression that the game really is about a bunch of crazy people that wouldn't stop at anything in order to kill each other. Erasculio 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
3. The crafting system in Diablo 2: Median 2008. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
4. In Lineage II they had MSN integrated which makes a neat addition to be able to tell friends to go online and play with you without actually minimizing the game. — ク Eloc 貢 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
5. I believe Lord of the Rings Online had built in VOIP which is quite handy. — ク Eloc 貢 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
6. When it comes to economy based games, Silkroad Online has a pretty awesome 3-way system. Basically, there are traders that run convoys between two major cities along the silkroad, there are warriors that are hired by said traders for protection, and there are thieves that attack and loot the convoys. It's pretty cool. -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Elder scrolls III, Morrowind. It's just plain epic. You got so many bloody options.Oni 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. Oblivion is pretty badass too, I still play every now and then. Great graphics + infinite storyline = win. ~Shard (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

      How do you manage an infinite storyline? -- Armond Warblade 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Built-in random tools such as a notepad, calculator and web browser in EVE Online. Dunno why, but I liked the idea of having basic utilities into the game so you don't have to alt-tab or run window mode. Oscidaes 21:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Titan Quest's (and probably some others) built in clock, so you don't have to minimize or look at your watch to see the time, just highlight the corner of the screen and the time pops up.
10. Neverwinter Night's campaign editor, the same editor the actual game developers used to make levels. Amazingly easy to learn, and lots of fun to play with & test your creations. ~Shard (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
11. The X series, particularly the final one, has an awesome game engine that makes me want to /drool every time I turn it on. Also, great understanding of economics. -- NUKLEAR IIV 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Professions, a la WoW - entire economies revolve around these things, yo. But things like Blacksmithing would need to be reasonable - it shouldn't cost almost a thousand gold to make a weapon that will sell for a couple hundred gold, if at all. Decent stats for decent mats. -- Armond Warblade 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Plot, character development, deviation. Fable, Mass Effect, Indigo Prophecy, and SW:KotOR I and II got these right. I just love choice games.--People of Antioch 14:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Super Mario Bros. and newer versions. Pretty much the opposite of Guild Wars. The concept is simple. You jump. And run. :D —ZerphaThe Improver 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
15. From PvX: I enjoy the thrill of diablo, the joy of the hunt for better equipment and not cosmetics. I also enjoy the ability to play wherever I want, and alone, instead of waiting for x number of people to sign on so I can do something interesting. Racthoh 03:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
16. Half Life 2 with it's episodes. Some major replay valuetime is put into it. I played a good deal of Half Life 1 but never beat it. It really is a magnificant series because It puts a decent emphasis on character developement and fleshes the story out on little scenes throughout the game. Instead of cutscenes or cinematics, you're actually there witnessing all of them. It's also neat on how there are no actual "bossfights". It's more like "introduce a new, tougher, rare monster here and there". And more often than not, "tougher" enemies are easy-ish to take down once you learn them. Also, Alyx Vance is hot.- Vanguard 03:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Trading system. Many other MMO have better trading systems comparen to GW, e.g. City of Heroes. --Xeeron 11:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
18. While I understand that it is insanely difficult to intoduce into a MMO, map/campaign building systems akin to warcraft3 are a huge advantage in terms of engaging the community and providing content over the long term. --Xeeron 11:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Games which allow the user to customise the game in an advanced way are always nice. I don't necessarily mean grand things such as what Xeeron suggested, but small things, like WoW's AddOns or Ragnarok Online's homunculus AI. --Mme. Donelle 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Like what number 14 said, jump. Always something I've wanted for GW that WoW has had. Also, a concept that Elder Scrolls has been using: Armor and Weaponry can break and be repaired. Maybe do something of the sorts where it takes a certain amount of materials and/or gold to have a blacksmith or weapons dealer repair. Brother 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad points about other games

Again, any game you like, plus links.

1. FFIV GBA version's dialog at/after the final battle when you brought people other than the original 5 got really funky. Don't do that. -- Armond Warblade 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Dawn of War's expansions eventually began making the game too complex. I would expect a decent player (even a casual decent player) to know all units, their roles and weakness and special abilities. That was something easily done on Dawn of War (four races, each with a few units), reasonable on the first expansion, Winter Assault (one extra faction, extra units for the previous races), feasible on the second one, Dark Crusade (two extra races, plus new units for everyone else) and unlikely on the third expansion, Soulstorm (a total of 9 races, with extra units for all the 7 previous ones). No wonder Dawn of War 2 is being produced (unfortunately it appears to be a mix between RTS and MMORPG) - adding anything more to the current game would made balance too hard to achieve. Erasculio 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   So what you're saying is constantly adding new professions and/or skills just because you can is a Bad Thing? -- Armond Warblade 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Especially if those professions and/or skills are added ignoring the damage they could do to the game, yeah (like someone else said, "fanservice" professions and/or skills). Adding a few new things is, IMO, good - it adds some diversity. Adding way too much stuff (leading to the loss of control Nuclear mentioned above) is bad. Erasculio 19:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Man, now you've got me wondering what GW would be like if ANet had decided from the start that expansions would add new content and nothing else. -- Armond Warblade 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think it would have been ok if they added new skills. Only instead of 25 skills per old profession plus two new professions, something like 5 skills for the original professions, and nothing more. Erasculio 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   Thing is, dawn of war is based on a table top game with a huge, brick-sized codex. - It's meant to be huge. -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

   I just spammed one or two types of units. A ground unit and some kind of heavy as much as I could. All Hail Necron!- Vanguard 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Silkroad Online is full of Turks who keep spamming innapropriate language and beg you for money, or servers are overrun by bots (every week they ban 1800 people on every server, each of whom has 10 bots running around). Ninjas In The Sky 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Runescape is a kiddy game, and got ruined on 10/12/2007. It stole half my friends' minds. Now they are calling me on the phone saying "lyk zomg i hit 70 damage !!!!!1eleven111!!!" Ninjas In The Sky 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Wasn't that the update where they changed the user interface to be all picture-y? That's when I left for good. -- Armond Warblade 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   They ruined both the trading system, the pk system and a big part of the game itself. 10.Dec.2008. was the date. Half my friends Q.Q'd all day. Ninjas In The Sky 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Funny as it is, I see more potential for RuneScape than Build Wars. The largest thing IMO that is holding RuneScape back is the bad combat system. It is overly simplistic, being entirely based on luck and grinding, and even a level 126 character can hit 0 damage on a rat because your damage is "0 damage up to your maximum". Runescape Classic at least had a hint of strategy and design as you could go with a 2-handed sword for accuracy and the m ost damage or a battle axe for the shield(better defence). When they switched over to the current RuneScape engine, they introduced different attack delays for different weapons, and after that, two handed swords became the worst(and most expensive) weapon. Battle axes are also crap. The problem? JaGex knows nothing about combat balance, but then again, Anet doesn't seem to either. I'll elaborate on the problem a bit more- A high-level character on RuneScape probably does 16 max damage with a rune scimitar every 1 and a half seconds. Rune 2h swords are twice as slow(once every 3 seconds) and do about 19-20 max damage on a good day. But since your damage is 0 up to your maximum the scimitar does 8 average damage and the 2 handed sword does 9-10, for being TWICE AS SLOW AND DISALLOWING USE OF A SHIELD. How is that balanced? Oh wait, that's very balanced compared to Smiter's Boon and For Great Injustice.

5. Also, the communities of all other online games-full of people who have no fucking idea what "hi" means. In GW, most players are either american, english or german. Ninjas In The Sky 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Tax fees-you heard it. I'm not paying 50$ for 2 months of WoW gameplay. Ninjas In The Sky 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Taxes can't be avoided without, you know, overthrowing the local government. -- Armond Warblade 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Games that create possibilites for intense harrassment of other players, e.g. PKing in D2 HM. No matter how you look at it, all it does is opening the possibility for a small groups of anti-social players to alienate the rest of the population. --Xeeron 11:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Other comments

1. 5-man teams for small areas, 10-man for normal size, up to 50-man for huge places? -- Armond Warblade 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   IMO, no. But this is purely a matter of personal taste - I can't think of any argument about why having huge parties would objectively hurt the game. I think this kind of party size hurts strategy, as it would become too troublesome to coordinate so many players, so it would become more likely that the party would display less skilled play, and that areas focused on such gamestyle would therefore aim less at requiring skill than requiring just large numbers. Not to mention how hard it would be to actually get a group of so many players - today it's already a problem to, say, find a reliable PUG (or make a reliable group) for a Domain of Anguish run, and that area has only a 8 players party. Plus, often I read about such huge parties as linked to "raiding" - in the meaning of playing repeatedly through an area just aiming to get good loot at its end, with only one or two players actually been rewarded with something (and everyone else having to just suck it up and go do the same run again), regardless of how fun it would (or not) be to play through that content - and that's a system I hate. Lastly, I think big party sizes lessen the worth of every character - that sounds kinda silly, but it gives me the feeling that the characters go from being heroes to being just soldiers. However, none of those problems is inherent to huge parties (and many, maybe even most, players wouldn't really care about some of those concerns anyway) - I think good game design would find a way to solve those things. Erasculio 23:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   It wouldn't be too hard to communicate with the right Vent setup. But yeah, I agree. Raids aren't any fun. --76.25.197.215 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

   In WoW, many guilds have weekly raids for 10-man areas. They say on their website "ok, we're gonna do kara on saturday" and people sign up. The first 10 (barring problems such as lack of healer, etc) go - and in largeish guilds, that's pretty easy to do. The better guilds get 25-man raids going instead of 10-man raids. But yeah, getting together a 50-man raid would be pretty insane - that kind of thing would be reserved for randomway PvP (a la Alterac Valley) or dungeons specifically introduced for huge server-wide events (the kind where everyone on the server wants to do the raids).

   You bring up a good point, though - if the end bosses of 25+ man raids only drop two or three items worth getting, that'd kinda suck. -- Armond Warblade 00:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

   That particular problem could be solved, IMO, by using the same system we see in the GW:EN dungeons - when the boss is killed, we get a chest that each player may open once, so everyone gets a reward. Of course, the rewards would have to be within the same value range (Congrats, you have killed The Most 1337 Boss Ever! You have earned a Creme Brulee!). But then again, if everyone gets a cool item the first time they defeat the raid, they wouldn't have a loot incentive to keep playing that raid over and over...As a player, that doesn't bother me the least, but for the company making the game, that could be a problem. Erasculio 00:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

   Well, there's "a cool thing from xxx dungeon's chest" and "that awesome staff that's like +50 million stats from xxx dungeon's chest". So long as there's a reasonable chance (say 70% or so) of getting an upgrade your first (few) time(s) through, as a player I think I can see playing through the same dungeon a bunch for that big upgrade.

   The other trick up a designer's sleeve is to make the dungeon fun. As a player, I get zero benefit from going through THK, but I still log in every now and then just for that. -- Armond Warblade 00:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Still debating the changing primary professions thing, and I'm not sure I like it. For one, the more time you spend in a primary profession, the more you learn about it; for another, from a lore standpoint, how do you make it flow smoothly? I did a bunch of thinking, though, and I'm thinking if the changing professions thing does go through, it ought not be without going through a decent-sized quest line that can act as a "boot camp" for your new profession - maybe seven to ten major quests where you gain your new abilities one or two at a time and put them to use in different ways, as instructed by your quest givers. Basic things (like condition removal on a class that doesn't focus purely on healing and support) would be thrown in between the major quests (something like "you got your remove disease, now go over and cure five people in the sick bay" as opposed to "here's your holy smite, here's your shackle undead, here's a field of undead ogres and zombie sorcerers, come back later"). Thoughts? -- Armond Warblade 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'd be okay with "go use ability nao" quests, and pre sear was pretty much like that. But as for changing the primary prof - that is up to you. -- NUKLEAR IIV 08:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   Note to self: Run a warrior or something through pre. If can has black dyes, drop them on the perma-pre. -- Armond Warblade 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   I like the idea of introducing players to a profession and actually letting them know what the profession is about. IMO, Arena Net has potential to do this - there's one Warrior quest in Pre Searing that requires players to interrupt an enemy in order to defeat him (Warrior's Challenge). To me that quest was great - not for being challenging (it really wasn't), but rather for introducing to the average PvE player (who IMO isn't used to thinking of warrior-like characters as anything more than tanks first and maybe damage sources) the idea that warriors are actually capable of greatly disrupting the oponent. While many other "learn to play profession X" quests sucked, I think Armond's idea would improve both the game and the playerbase. Erasculio 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

3. One of the obvious problems with a game like WoW is the item hierarchy - in PvP, it's way too easy to lose because you were out-geared (19 twinks in wsg for those in the know), and in PvE, the earlier dungeons designed for max level get way too easy simply because after a while your equipment is just too good for it - which basically means you're missing out on what can be some of the coolest (and generally most nostalgic) dungeons simply because you kept playing the game, unless you're wasting half your inventory keeping old gear. So I had a radical thought - no equipment drops, ever. Instead, you might get trophies similar, at lower levels, to the trophy drops in GW that you trade in to collectors for equipment. Pre-40 (the max level) gear I've not thought about too much, as I want to build this for level 40s, but at 40 there would be "tiers" of gear. You trade in a certain amount of these trophies (say, 21 spectral dust for a tier 1 headpiece, or something like that) for your equipment, and when you do so, you customize it to your standards. Perhaps the t1 headpiece above gets 50 "customization points", and you could spend them for certain bonuses as you wish - say, 3 CP = +5 healing from spells, or 7 CP = +1 Strength, or some such. Due to my lack of laptop, I've not finished deciding what stats at 40 should look like, so this is all theory and the numbers are certainly subject to change, but it's a thought. From there, I'd program dungeons to only allow items of a certain tier to be equipped within them (PvE dungeons could be t1 for the very first dungeons, where you're still finishing up your level 40 character with quests similar in idea to GW's 15 attrib quests, up to t8 or some such for the most powerful equipment currently available; PvP areas could be split to only accept "PvP t1" equipment, or some such, up to, I think, PvP t4 to emphasize skill over gear in PvP). Skins become a question, but I'm thinking maybe random items with no stats could drop (a blank elemental sword, for comparison) and could be either sold to other players or upgraded as normal (and therefore customized). Cooler skins could require a minimum tier of upgrading - an ele sword could only have t5+ stats, for example. The downside is, especially, if you can change your primary, this would mean a shitload of stuff for your inventory, but I'm thinking a sort of "keyring" system could help with that. (All the equipment stored in the one keyring would be hidden until you go to open them, and then they'd be organized by equipment "sets" you can customize as needed, with an option to equip all of a set at once or each piece individually. I don't mean equipment sets like sets that grant a set bonus when worn together, but a set of items you stuffed together because that's what you equip all at once - your survivor's set verses your radiant set, for example.) Enough ranting, someone gief opinion. -- Armond Warblade 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   A very good starting point (the item hierarchy is a problem that right now is almost absent from GW1, but it likely will be there for GW2), and the idea of trading trophies for items is great, as it would allow you to choose exactly what you get (as opposed to someone who today gets rare skin X as his drop, while he wanted rare skin Y). You could even give those trophies as quest rewards (like the Imperial Commendations in Cantha or the jewels in the Domain of Anguish). One thing I didn't understand, though: what would be the difference between using a keyring for items of different tiers, and using a keyring for the old gear you mentioned in the beginning of your idea? (Maybe we could have each item having multiple tiers on itself - for example, a headpiece would have a tier 1 upgrade giving it +5 armor and a tier 2 upgrade giving it +10 armor; in tier 1 dungeons, only the tier 1 upgrade would work, while in a tier 2 dungeon both upgrades would work, for a total of +15 armor) Erasculio 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Those keyrings are the same; I just worded it badly. You would, essentially, open a keyring (or backpack, or pouch, or something of the like) and have all sorts of armor sitting in there, organized as you wish and ready to equip. I really like your idea of upgraded tiers - that would save a huge amount of inventory/screen space. If there's ten professions, and you can change between them at will, and you've got ten tiers of equipment unlocked already, and for each one you've got two different equipment sets - a tank vs dps set, or a healing vs protection set - that's 200 sets of equipment, which before weapons, is 2,000 separate pieces of armor, and that's a low estimate - you're likely to want three sets for some of the professions, and of course there's more than ten tiers total.

   I was thinking people might not want the lower-tier abilities - for example, they may want the +15 armor at t2 but not +5 armor at t1 - but I think that's unlikely, as people will probably make sets for a specific purpose (tank, dps, healing, etc, as mentioned), and if it really becomes a problem, we could simply eliminate prerequisites for the bonuses - so at t1 you might get +2 Constitution, but at t2 that's replaced with +15 armor.

   The only thing I really don't like about the idea is it eliminates the "awesome skin = awesome stats" bit I touched on earlier. The opposite of the gear hierarchy is, as we see in Guild Wars, "playing barbie", where any skin can get any stats you want, horrible or grandiose. In WoW, when I see a Warlock walking around with a shoulder mantle that occasionally unfolds and flaps its wings, I know he's wearing something special even before I use the in-game inspect option; it'd be a bit of a letdown, from a personal note, if people could walk around with the equivilent of an eternal blade with t1 stats (read: +12% while health less than 50%, furious 3%, +10 health - ok, maybe not that bad, but still).

   Come to think of it, I'm having trouble seeing why the supposedly lower-level dungeons would restrict the powers of your equipment. I mean, that's some serious magical power that's affecting every piece of equipment you own, and across your entire party. (Suspension of disbelief ftl.)

   -- Armond Warblade 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe one way to keep the "awesome skin = awesome stats" idea would be by limiting the number of tiers you could fit within a weapon based on its skin. So a basic sword would only have "slots" for a tier 1 upgrade, while the most awesome skins would have "slots" for upgrades from 1 to 8. Probably some other game already works like this - we could say that each tier is one kind of gem, and a basic sword can only handle one gem socket (a blue one, to keep the current color scheme we have?), while a rare weapon can handle eight sockets (a blue one, a purple one, a golden one, a green one, etc). Erasculio 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   You know, I'm gonna sadface when summer ends and you go back to trolling, because you have some really awesome ideas. The random people that want a t8 Ascalon Razor or some such are gonna QQ, though.

   I don't think I'll go with gems, simply because I was considering an option where you could spend CPs to get gem slots, similar to WoW's gem and socket systems. Then again, those systems seem mainly added so one can customize one's gear - any WoW piece of equipment could simply have set bonuses equal to any particular gem's bonuses instead of gem sockets - and, of course, this tier system would have all the customization one could want.

   I dunno; maybe gems, maybe not. I'll have to mull it over. And again, whatever the final verdict is, it ought to make sense lore-wise why your weapon suddenly decides to not work fully when you take a guild group back to a t2 dungeon for kicks with your t5 equipment. (Although I will say I can believe some of the later dungeons with their gear restrictions. T3 gear against t6-level opponents, anyone? Won't say much more now, but I have a few ideas...) -- Armond Warblade 04:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe, lore-wise, we could say that the weapons only fully awaken when faced with a great challenge; so when facing something that isn't a challenge (the low level dungeons), the weapons "sleep" waiting for a time when they'll truly be needed. Basically making our weapons like miniature versions of the Hulk xD Contrieved for no end, but I think that would make more sense than having a low level dungeon with a spell powerful enough to dull earth-shattering weapons (and thanks for the "awesome" : D). Erasculio 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Racials: I really don't like how in pretty much every game you get racials that are standard for your entire race. Like, every orc in WoW has +5 expertise for axes. Well, great, except when I roll a warlock and that's absolutely useless because I can't equip axes at all. Same for +5% pet damage and +250 attack power at the cost of -50% healing. (Warlocks get pets, yeah, but for the most part they're not used for damage. There's, like, two pets whose damage actually matters, and they're used only in PvP, and only if you're giving up the awesome non-damage capabilities of the Succumbus. And one of the two you have to spec all the way into demonology to get - you don't get him by leveling.) So I was thinking of a point system for racials. You get 15 racials points, and different racial abilities cost different amounts of RPs. Say you want +2% damage with all of a certain type of weapon - that'd be 5 RP, or something like that. Allows for customization. Possibly also lock out some racials if you pick others (no +3% pet damage and +4% maximum mana, for example). -- Armond Warblade 12:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

   That's kinda the system used in AD&D; I like it, that might work. Large 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

   Definitely no racial bonuses and penalties in Build Wars 2, please. Part of the point of Build Wars is that you are supposed to be able to customize your character any way you like without the lore getting in the way. If appearance affected how your character did in combat... How would you like it if female characters did more damage with magic and male characters did more damage with attacks? That would force people to roll a character avatar they don't really care for just to get a particular effect. It's better just to let any character pick any spec or talent and the species of an avatar be simply a representation of the bytes and bits that is your character.

   This isn't about GW2 - this is about an entirely new MMO that may see beta in about a decade. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm.... an MMO that may see beta in about a decade.. Knowing Anet, that's Build Wars 2 alright. Oh wait-that's the amount of time it will take them to learn how to balance Build Wars properly.

   Your sarcasm is not appreciated. Yes, it'll be a while, but that's because I've got to go through college and get some startup funds (or find someone willing to provide such funds) before I can work on much more than the theory of the thing. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Pets - kill 'em off entirely? I've yet to find a system that uses pets and isn't at least moderately broken due to the extra damage and/or damage packets (not to mention bodyblocking, extra target to hex to get the same effects, etc). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe a system in which a player could have a pet, but most of the time the pet would only have the basic attack. The player would be able to use a skill to take direct control of the pet and so control its movement and the pet's own skill bar, but losing control of the character itself (who then would only attack, without using any kind of skill and choosing its own targets). The control of the pet would be timed, and using different pet skills would consume that time. Once the timer is over, the player goes back to controlling the character, and the skill responsible for taking control of the pet begins its cooldown (which would reset whenever the pet is killed). I'm copying this a bit from the summoning system from Final Fantasy X and (what I heard of) XII. Erasculio 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

   Nah, everything from Final Fartasy is a bad idea. The entire series is bad, always has been bad, and probably will never improve. I heard one of the newer ones has something called "gambits" where you can sort of program your characters to fight for you. The reason why they have that is that Final Fartasy is boring and repetitive. It sucks. Seriously, if the average person gets bored with Final Fartasy until they want their computers to play the game for them and do really well, either the game mechanics are broken(your character can spit out 9999 damage without thinking about it) or it's so boring to the point where people want to throw the combat out and just watch the cutscenes. Anyway, back on topic- Pets are always a bit of a borked system-they can cause a lot of balancing problems. In every game I have seen where your character has a pet, they are either overpowered or they suck and are a liability not worth bringing along rather than an asset. Or even worse, they are insanely overpowered and broken in a few niche cases and worthless anytime else. I say just ditch them.

   Or you could simply give everyone a pet. That would even things out. 145.94.74.23 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)