User talk:Auron/gtagw

So much truth in only a whole wall of text :( Lilondra *panda* 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For players that have knowledge of the game these things are obvious. For those that don't... Well, they won't accept these ideas anyway cause they are glued to Anet's ass. Dark Morphon 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do youhave a job?I mean, why om Earth would you write so much crap about a game? If you don't like it, don't play it.

Do youhave a job?I mean, why om Earth would you read so much crap about a game you're not gonna agree with anyway? If you don't like it, don't read it. (BTW gj on capitalizing Earth. Most people who misspell 2 letter words can't handle proper nouns). ~Shard 19:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You forgot about the spacings.Pika Fan 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My keyboard's crappy, stopping being grammar nazis.

Bu a better keyboard. They only cost like what...$2.50 these days? Anyways, I like your article Auron. And your positive attitude. A lot. 87.210.150.58 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone ever asks me again why I invested so much time in GW compared to any other MMO then this page is where they shall be directed. Sums it up perfectly. --118.90.25.192 15:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sooooo true. I'd personally add Observer Mode, Weapon Swapping, movement based combat (WoW is all about CC...), those are probably the 3 things I find great about GW that you didn't mention. DarkNecrid 09:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm 14 dude... I'm not gonna buy a new keyboard :P

I like; this article is win, dude. King Neoterikos 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it, i lost caring about this game a long time ago, crap balance, charging you money for things we should get anyway... but you made me realise i'm playing a game that is so different from the rest so i'm going to carry on in hope all the money helps guild wars 2 a better game than the rest. Auron, you has awesoem Zyko Wolfven 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I know people like to compare gw with wow, but really there's one fundamental difference that makes the comparison unfair: no monthly fee vs. monthly fee. That really changes how the game is designed. You could argue that gw is shifting/shifted towards the money-devouring machine with all the micro-transactions. Regardless of what philosophy or morals or fabulous new ideas & concepts these companies come up with, it's all about the money in the end. --8765 07:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you can add that to the list of reasons why Guild Wars is bad. Blizzard put time, effort and a shitload of money into making WoW the game it is now - ANet did (comparatively) little. To be honest, I've never seen a commercial on the TV for guild wars, and every time I go into a gaming store, I see wow posters all over the place, and I've never seen a Guild Wars one. ANet has been pretty patchy from the beginning (for example, never hiring remotely competent community reps), but at least their game was good, so nobody really cared or complained. Now, ANet doesn't even have a good game to deflect complaints to - they just ban your account or something to get you to go away.

Both companies were open to pick their own business model. Blizzard picked one that is far superior to ANet's, and it allowed them to keep pouring effort into their game over the years. ANet made a PvP game with relatively little grind for a seemingly niche market, hoping to attract folks who don't want to pay monthly for a game. Too late, they realized that the market for PvE is bigger than the PvP market, and their POS business model prevented them from adding actual content to make PvE fun/interesting/engaging. I only dare to compare GW with WoW now because ANet has realized that PvE sells, and so about 90% of their changes in the past year or two have been geared toward giving the PvE crowd more eye candy. If GW had remained a niche PvP game, I wouldn't begin to compare it to WoW. -Auron 02:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I liked reading this, I've read most of your articles about GW being bad and how it was good, and I can't say I disagree. If you're going to continue along this line, maybe you should mention about instancing? Since, that's one of the advantages of GW in my book... no ganking, no killstealing, no loot theft... Of course that doesn't have much effect on PvP, at least compared to how that stuff works in WoW. Another positive thing would be, that GW doesn't punish on dying like WoW or other MMORPGs do (Durability/money loss AND wipe). Mediggo 06:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Interrupts, in my humble opinion, is one of the better points in GW. Along with Hexes, yea; they might be brainless and OP, but the idea behind them is really good to be honest. y'know, being able to make an opponent less effective for a little while without making those same opponents complete shit. (See: Fear @ WoW per example) Actually, that's what hexes should have been like, but they aren't. Never mind.

Also, skills no skills that take 3 years to recharge (Sup WoW!) or cast. (though...)

Also; Bar compression! Only being able to take 8 skills makes it so that can't play 7 different roles in one team. (Oh, our tank died? np *switches to dire bear form and pewpew*)

Yea, as you might notice, the only somewhat proper RPG asides from GW I played is WoW. I'm still somewhat a gameing virgin. :< 82.75.192.76 18:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude...

I'll slap you to death if you diss morrowind. Especially its storyline/lore, since that's whats so god damn epic about it. (oni83.249.112.175 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But it's so fucking boring. The fact that you can steal shit by picking it up, dropping it, and picking it up again doesn't make up for that. I loved the loading screens, too. Vili 点 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What I loved most about Morrowind:

Walk forward for 10 seconds.

Wait 30 seconds to load next area.

Walk forward for 10 seconds... ~Shard 01:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oblivion effectively sped that up:

Walk forward 5 secs

Talk to some guy for 2 seconds

Map travel and wait 30 seconds for place to load. --Riddle 01:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I can't agree with the loading time thingie. Granted, if you cheat your way in a noclip/29389235823 speed/icarial flight way, then yes, of course you'll be loading every five seconds. That's cause you're going into a new region every five seconds P.P!

It's VEREEH hard to get into morrowind. Ie; get started. But once you end up at a decent character stage I find the gameplay simply amazing ;'>83.249.112.175 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My quad core cuts oblivion's load time for exterior areas to about 5-7 seconds, then until the next time I map travel, no load times at all :D ~Shard 20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

vs EQ2

Just some notes about EQ2, since you mention it in the header and then pretty much ignore it or state falsehoods.

First, though, an aside about classes in EQ2, since it's a little unique and it helps put everything else I say into context.

At launch, when you rolled a character, you picked one of four classes: Fighter, Mage, Priest, and Scout. Each fills the obvious role (Tank, Magic DPS + Crowd Control, Heals, and Melee DPS + Debuff, respectively). At level 10, you'd branch into one of three specialty classes. For example, figthers branched to:

• Warrior, straight-up heavy armor mitigation tank
• Brawler, avoidance tank + DPS
• Crusader, mitigation tank + spells

And then, at level 20, you branched again. Warriors branched to:

• Guardian: mit tank focusing on single-target damage/threat
• Berserker: mit tank with more AoE damage/threat

Brawlers branched to:

• Monk: avoidance tank with self-heals and wards
• Bruiser: avoidance tank with more DPS

Crusaders branched to:

• Paladins: mit tanks with self-heals and wards
• Shadowknight: mit tanks with lots of spell DPS

Nowadays, you don't actually go through the splits, you just pick your final class at the beginning. This means that EQ2 has 24 classes, but by design, most of them share many similarities and picking one or the other that fill a certain role is mostly a matter of personal playing preference. Further, if your tastes change -- for example, if you're a monk but find yourself not tanking often and would prefer the added DPS of a bruiser -- you can quest ("betray") to change your class, but only between the two classes at the final "fork". Monks can betray to bruiser but not to paladin.

Anyway, on to some points... "Other games sometimes have "prots," but they're bad"

The shaman classes (Defiler and Mystic) focus on prots (we call 'em "wards") rather than direct heals. For example, the Defiler gets 7 ward spell lines, but only 3 direct heals. They are just as valued as the direct healers (cleric classes) and the regenerative healers (druid classes).

Paladins and monks also get wards for general tankage (paladin moreso, the monk ward is more "ohshit" style), and Wizards get a replenishing ward (mostly useful for soloing).

"(re: energy management): In WoW and EQ2, your only option is just that - sit down after a battle and eat food, or drink rather expensive potions to restore your mana instantly"

The enchanters (Illusionists and Coercers) specialize in (among other things) energy management for your group. Most raids have one enchanter per group (often a Coercer for the main tank group and an Illy for each other group), both for energy management and for the buffs and general utility. (My main is an Illusionist.)

In short, if you run out of mana, it means that either your group is mis-composed or that you simply don't have the DPS output necessary (as a whole) to complete the content.

PvP isn't big in EQ2, and I don't play PvP, so I can't discuss the specifics there, but I don't expect energy denial to be a viable tactic.

""GLF DPS" means a mage or a hunter or a DK or even a shaman can join"

Sorta true and sorta not true. There are many classes that can join any archetypical request, because EQ2's class structure is very broad. However, "LFM DPS" is only likely to accept the non-bard scouts and the mages (and maybe a brawler, depending on his gear). But again, not a PvP game, so... :)

"Hell, people in WoW mistake grind for skill all the time. "Instant level 80 characters? That takes no skill at all!""

EQ2 they nerfed the 1-70 grind to be terrifyingly easy. Girlfriend and I did it, pretty much on weekends only, in about a month. Just enough time to really learn your class and your spell-lines.

"In WoW, you get a hearthstone, which takes you back to a pre-determined city, and it's on a 1-hour recharge. ...The rest of the time, you have to walk (or fly) everywhere, and that is a huge timesink."

In EQ2, guilds build up guild halls. The amenities you purchase include portals to pretty much every overland zone, or at worst a zone one zone away. You get get to nearly any place in the world within 4-5 minutes. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tanaric (talk).

Basically...

You are saying GW PvP is better than WoW PvP. No-one is a big enough crack head to think Guild Wars PvE was ever superior to WoW PvE - in any way. As you said yourself, the money is in PvE not PvP so WoW is doing what most people want best.

If Guild Wars had a monthly fee the way it was designed, it would have died like every other MMO that tried to compete with WoW.

You can't solo content designed for groups in WoW PvE. In GW solo farming/running/gimmicks is how everything is done. People actually play their classes in dungeons instead of sit back while a runner does the work or spam PvE skills, and any class can get into a group because the horrible "simplicity" of it you mentioned (I realise you were largely talking about PvP) meant that your role was either tank, DPS or heals. GW PvE is so horribly balanced because of years of PvP nerf abuse that only a handful of professions are ever used anywhere. Heroes didn't make PvE playable - they killed it. 58.110.60.57 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I totally didn't see this post. I'll try to respond in order.

Yes, I am saying that GW PvP is better than WoW PvP. By leaps and bounds. There's not even a comparison, really - the highest form of PvP in WoW is team arenas, and that was one of the lowest in Guild Wars.

Not necessarily - if Guild Wars had a monthly fee the way it was designed (to have an expansion come out every 6 months, remember?) people would stay and play it. WoW isn't some fantastic, awe-inspiring game. It's a generic MMO, but the big difference between it and all the other MMOs is that blizzard is constantly adding new content. By the time half the guilds have finished one raid, another one is out already. And the raids aren't small-time shit, either, it's an entire maze of passages and trash mobs that lead to memorable boss fights. Blizzard also has amazing CR, which is a huge hurdle for ANet in particular, but again, the business model is simply superior. The company gets paid $15/mo from every player to keep making new shit. If ANet was collecting $15/mo and didn't make new shit, they'd lose their playerbase, definitely. But the point of collecting the $15/mo is to be able to continue working on the first game, instead of merely holding it on life support as ANet is currently doing (as it is unprofitable, with their business model, to dump any resources into GW1). To summarize, I don't profess that Guild Wars should have had a monthly fee and been kept on the same release schedule, I'm professing that a monthly fee would lead to an incentive for the company to release new content frequently. For example, Sorrow's Furnace was an excellent addition to the game. Had the company been collecting monthly fees, a Sorrow's Furnance-caliber instance could be added every few months, instead of never again.

"GW PvE is so horribly balanced because of years of PvP nerf abuse" On the one hand, I agree that a few skills were destroyed that shouldn't have been, but to be honest, GW PvE was horribly balanced because ANet failed at balance to begin with, not because a couple of skills every 6 months got the nerf bat. Domain of Anguish is a perfect example. When a WoW raid comes out, it's hard, but it isn't bordering-on-impossible hard. You go in, wipe a few times, get the feel for the new bosses, and start killing them. DoA wasn't like that. In easy mode, each area had way-too-powerful persistent effects (including one that simply made you miss 50% of the time - what the fuck kind of idea is that?), mobs that were individually powerful, and a stupidly designed escort quest or two. On top of it all, there is not a single res shrine in the entire zone, so you are punished ridiculously heavily for failing a single time. That is simply PvE design failure of epic proportions, and it has nothing to do with GvGers getting a couple of skills smiters' booned.

I have to disagree on your last point - the PvE was already dead. Heroes were merely revamped Henchmen, AI party-fillers (except heroes could be made to not suck). I had, by Nightfall release, done all of Prophecies and Factions alone or with 1 buddy and 6 or 7 henchmen. Nothing existed in the game to inspire me to play with people - I would have had to deal with their stupidity, so I got used to running with the AI. I remember doing a few missions in Proph with a full party of people, way back in the day... but that had long ceased by the time heroes had come out. I could only reliably find a party for factions in the first month or three of its release. After that, people just reverted back to full AI parties because finding a team was so hard.

The biggest mistake with heroes, IMO, was requiring specific heroes to enter certain missions. That was just tacky as shit. If an NPC is supposed to have speaking lines, they should just appear and speak during the cutscene and go away for the rest of it. Requiring a hero to take a human's spot was a really bad plan. Either way, I shat bricks when heroes came out. Back before it was the "thing" to exploit heroes with dime-a-dozen bonder smite builds or hexes and minions, I had dreams of making full team builds, like the kinds I had run in PvP, because it was finally possible. Heroes, however, were a rather big letdown, as they couldn't use half the skills properly.

But alas, I rant. WoW and Guild Wars are fundamentally different games, but Guild Wars could have been a much bigger PvE success than it was had the company's CR been up to snuff and expansion releases on schedule (which, again, would have been helped by a monthly sub). -Auron 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In My opinion.GW is for Poor People People who dont want to spend thier epic amounts of money.And that effects the game in a manor most shiet.1 being the z-axis.with less money.GW1 cant even attempt to meet WoW's standards. And with the Wide variaty of skills in WoW,Nothing is ever Overpowered.because people find more ways to mix skills WITHOUT exploiting them.

Now on Map Travel.i agree that certain Wyvern/Griffon Rides in WoW are Long and Grueling and i do add that they should be a bit faster, But thats what makes WoW special.insted of Teleporting wherever the heck you want for free you can enjoy whats REAL (for computers sake.anyway). --Neil2250 18:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nothing is ever Overpowered [in WoW]"

What game are you talking about again? Also, portals. Vili 点 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Portals...? And at least in WoW they have a reason.to go from 1 town here to anougther 50 miles away.insted of going 1 area to the next. --Neil2250 18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Setting Dalaran or Shattrath City as your hearth, and/or using mage ports, whether you are one yourself or get them from others. Warlock and Death Knight also have teleport abilities, though only to a few preselected destinations. Yes, it's not quite the same as map travel, and hearth is on a 30-minute recharge, but it does get you nearly instantly from Point A to Point B for free. Vili 点 18:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)