I think GW could actually survive a GW3

[juno.1840]

> @"Faline.8795" said:

> Guild Wars is probably one of the very few MMORPGs that could survive financially by creating a new, modern version of itself. FFXIV is another, but they probably don't need to yet. WoW would by its sheer size. Other than that, I don't know.

 

I think the GW1 community may disagree.

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > Take it or leave it, can't be bothered to dig up 5+ years on google.

>

> Funny how that works. You make claims that they said things that they never said. Now it's up to you to bother and dig up 5+ years on google to find those quotes and references because I'm 100% sure they never said anything that you claim they did. So post direct quotes or it never happened.

 

Sure, I'll waste my precious time searching quotes to convince you.

Already said take it or leave it, can't be bothered.

[Dami.5046]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"Faline.8795" said:

> > Guild Wars is probably one of the very few MMORPGs that could survive financially by creating a new, modern version of itself. FFXIV is another, but they probably don't need to yet. WoW would by its sheer size. Other than that, I don't know.

>

> I think the GW1 community may disagree.

 

I personally enjoyed the first game more than the second, I still play it, and wish they had developed it more, maybe even done another expansion before GW2.

For me, when they finally pull the pug on that game I will be more sad than if they decided to do the same for GW2.

If they did Gw3 i could see GW been shut down in favour of keeping GW2 just sitting there, a shadow of it's former self with only a handful of players logging in for feels and memories.

I would either prefer Tyria to go out with a bang or visit the story before the searing and see the actual Guildwars.

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Leablo.2651" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > @"Eme.2018" said:

> > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > > > > yes, for ~~most of playerbase~~ **me and some others here on the forum** optimalisation (or rather lack of thereoff) is most important factor when asking for new game engine

> > > > > Fixed that for you. Don't want anyone accusing you of speaking of majorities you cannot prove.

> > > >

> > > > Well, either the majority of the player base is indeed having problems with the game's optimization or Gw2 has a really rich player base with godly PC's since I have an above average computer and still I struggle to get stable FPS, a sign of poor optimization.

> > > >

> > > Except in life things aren't usually either or... This binary style of thinking is part of the problem. Loads of discussions on game forums end up in two sides and there usually are more sides to it.

> > >

> > > Take your comment for example.

> > > You can only see the options that a majority has issues with the optimization or most people have godly PC's as you put it.

> > >

> > > But that's an over-simplification. Some people don't care about graphics that much, some people don't do PvP at all, some people don't care about fps that much. Hell some people you'll have to explain what fps actually is.

> > >

> > > Also you do not need a godly PC to run this game. You need a good PC when you have a number of requirements. Also you need to have the right combination of hardware to make it work right. I've seen so many people complain with decent computers but one element wrong that creates a bottleneck. Also your internet provided is important and you need the right screen with the right cables etc.

> >

> > Just to add to this, I'm not even convinced that the problems people have are much to do with their PCs not being good enough. I definitely don't have a godly PC: it's 7-8 years old, with some components even older, and I expect it's below average for a gaming PC (I can't remember the specs off the top of my head). However, I play the game at maximum graphics settings and have only twice had major FPS problems: once when the karka invaded Lion's Arch (which I think was notorious for that anyway), and once in the Warden Amala fight in Istan.

>

> That depends on what you consider to be a "major" FPS problem. Did you measure it? Engine optimization is not a matter of opinions.

 

By "major" I mean it was low enough for me to notice that the movement wasn't smooth and lasted long enough for it to affect my ability to play the game. While I take your point, I don't think anyone would consider the FPS I have while playing the game to be bad enough to complain about. I'm confident that the people who post about FPS problems on the forum definitely have less stable FPS than me - otherwise they wouldn't have noticed that their FPS is dropping - but at least some, probably most, of them have better PCs than me (based on the specs people have posted and the fact that my PC is old and not that great). From that, I'm concluding that the FPS problems are not just about bad PCs versus good PCs.

[Eme.2018]

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> Except in life things aren't usually either or... This binary style of thinking is part of the problem. Loads of discussions on game forums end up in two sides and there usually are more sides to it.

>

> Take your comment for example.

> You can only see the options that a majority has issues with the optimization or most people have godly PC's as you put it.

>

> But that's an over-simplification. Some people don't care about graphics that much, some people don't do PvP at all, some people don't care about fps that much. Hell some people you'll have to explain what fps actually is.

>

> Also you do not need a godly PC to run this game. You need a good PC when you have a number of requirements. Also you need to have the right combination of hardware to make it work right. I've seen so many people complain with decent computers but one element wrong that creates a bottleneck. Also your internet provided is important and you need the right screen with the right cables etc.

>

> So no, it's not either or as you suggest. And since it is known that most gamers never come to the forums and that forums tend to attract more complaints because when people are upset this is the sort of place they come to first, you also cannot really say anything about "most players" who never come here and may be disproportionately represented here. Just because you only can imagine two options doesn't mean that you're right. And I am telling you that there's usually a lot of grey area in between. Heck, what does "godly" even mean? That really depends on the person. I have an i7-7700k, GTX1070Ti and 16GB RAM. Is that godly? To some it probably is, but to me it's not. Considering the games that come out currently that's decent. I do not have the i7-8xxx series, I do not have a 1080 or an RTX graphics card and 16GB is what you need for games these days and 32GB RAM is not a bad thing either...but that's more expensive than I'm able/willing to pay for it.

>

> There just is a big disconnect between people's expectations and what they can actually afford and then it's easy to blame the company. Now I do think it's good that they keep optimizing and try to create a broad experience because that's what they need to do to keep the game going successfully.

>

> Consider this. The game is making 50% more money on a monthly basis than last year (comparing before and after PoF). This is factual. It's based on the data in the NcSoft financial report. Do you really think that GW2 would be able to get such an increase in a game that's over 5 years old, if most people were struggling with making the game work for them? I mean do you really think that?

>

 

> @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > @"Eme.2018" said:

> > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > > yes, for ~~most of playerbase~~ **me and some others here on the forum** optimalisation (or rather lack of thereoff) is most important factor when asking for new game engine

> > > Fixed that for you. Don't want anyone accusing you of speaking of majorities you cannot prove.

> >

> > Well, either the majority of the player base is indeed having problems with the game's optimization or Gw2 has a really rich player base with godly PC's since I have an above average computer and still I struggle to get stable FPS, a sign of poor optimization.

> >

> Except in life things aren't usually either or... This binary style of thinking is part of the problem. Loads of discussions on game forums end up in two sides and there usually are more sides to it.

>

> Take your comment for example.

> You can only see the options that a majority has issues with the optimization or most people have godly PC's as you put it.

>

> But that's an over-simplification. Some people don't care about graphics that much, some people don't do PvP at all, some people don't care about fps that much. Hell some people you'll have to explain what fps actually is.

 

A problem is a problem whether someone acknowledges it or not.

 

If someone was born blind, even if nobody ever told him that such thing as sight exists, it doesn't mean that he wouldn't face the problems that are inherent to his disability nor does it mean that he wouldn't be more factional without it.

 

Furthermore, ignorance is not an excuse, it is part of the problem. If you are not able to address what you find unappealing about a game, you will simply give up on it.

 

It is more than possible that many players got turned off by Guild War's poor performance, even if they didn't directly acknowledged the problem. No one is blind to FPS drops, you can see the effect even if you don't know what FPS are. And even if you think you don't care, it certainly does create a bad impression.

 

[Vayne.8563]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"Faline.8795" said:

> > Guild Wars is probably one of the very few MMORPGs that could survive financially by creating a new, modern version of itself. FFXIV is another, but they probably don't need to yet. WoW would by its sheer size. Other than that, I don't know.

>

> I think the GW1 community may disagree.

 

Most of the GW1 community realizes Guild Wars 1 wasn't an MMO though, at least most that ever bothered to think about it. Hint, a lobby game where you walk into a world that's instanced without any chance of running into a stranger in the "open world" isn't an MMO. Anet called it a CoRPG and when Guild Wars 2 first came out Anet said one of the reasons they wanted to make it was because they wanted to make a true MMO.

 

Most definitions of MMOs include the idea of a persistent world, whether things are going on whether or not your character is involved in them. In Guild Wars 1, instances reset when you weren't in them, because no one else was. You could make the argument from the original definition that even Guild Wars 2 isn't a true MMO since the worlds aren't persistent, they're instanced, but that's a hair splitting definition. Guild Wars 2 is massively multiplayer because I can play with 100 people on the same map. Guild Wars 1 wasn't massively multiplayer, because you had to get a party together in an outpost and then you entered the world.

 

But I still doubt Guild Wars would survive if it attempted to split it's population this way. The only way it could have really survived is if the new game was a completely different genre than this game. like an MMO shooter as opposed to an MMORPG.

[sorudo.9054]

> @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > > > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > > > > > @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> > > > > > > They are already extreme limited with what they can do to it, if you haven't noticed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are cases of games of a previous console era that move on to a newer one using a new graphic engine. A game like Crysis couldn't run on the consoles of that time (xbox360/ps3) so they ported the entire original game to a new engine version that was capable of running on that console hardware. Other games are ported to upgrade the visuals like the Batman games from the previous era being ported to the current gen consoles going from unreal engine 3 to unreal engine 4. It's not impossible, nor unheard of, to port an entire game from one engine to another, either to solve performance issues or to upgrade the visuals (we are in the first category)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Crysis case in particular is very relevant to our situation because the engine used in that game wasn't threaded well, meaning it was using a single core (same as the GW engine), but their next engine supported threading, splitting the load on multiple cores. They ported the entire first game to the new engine version (to run on consoles), so maybe Arenanet could do the same, make a new, better threaded engine, then port their entire game to it. The assets, models, textures, sound, music, particles, materials, even lights and map data, can be the exact same, so porting it wouldn't be as time consuming as someone might imagine.

> > > > >

> > > > > to add more into that point - also EvE online have moved to a completely new engine at some point and I have heard rumours WoW did as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > the only issue I could see in here is big load of work needed for such a venture and not sacrificing content releases for mechanical upgrades like this - prime example to show up perfectly what I am speaking here off is how long it takes them to develop world restructuring for wvw - AN may simply not have enought manpower at hand to complete such overhaul in any sensible way.

> > > > > (disclaimer: I don't mean in here only process of porting but also process of developping the new engine in the background in the first place)

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > that's not really what we're arguing here. it's that if the engine becomes to outdated that anet will probably choose to update the engine instead of making GW3

> > >

> > > Yet you have given no reason why they would.

> > >

> > > What does anet gain from updating the engine? A stable game with more function for a ton of work. No new draw to the game or any potential new players. It would be minimal attraction at best.

> > >

> > > No, if they are going to go through the monumental effort of redoing the engine, it will be at a point where they also develop a new game for sales. This would have far more return on investment.

> > >

> > > That said, I do not think they will do either anytime soon. It's a pipe dream to think they have enough time or money to update the engine now.

> >

> > updating, or rather, switch engine would allow them to add stuff they would never be able to do with the current engine.

> > like the saying goes, no pain no gain.

>

> Amd when you look at what they are doing right now, there isn't much they can't do gameplay wise. The engine upgrades would be for processing and performance, which is where the game is hurting now.

>

> Performance improvements are not going to bring in new players like a new game would.

>

>

 

they already said that they can't do certain things due engine limits (like certain dye options and customization options, etc..), performance wise it does lure ppl in because there are plenty of players who play this game, get horrible performance and leave.

so an engine upgrade would benefit both worlds.

[Opopanax.1803]

Dying options wont get people to buy the game or play it again.

 

Better performance may bring people back, but if they have already tried the game, that is also unlikely.

 

If they are going to gut the engine and rebuild it, they are going to need something more to market for increased sales to pay for it. I only see this happening with a new game release.

 

An engine upgrade alone will not generate dollars.

[Klipso.8653]

It would not, this is most likely the last successful game in this franchise

[Leablo.2651]

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > @"Leablo.2651" said:

> > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > @"Eme.2018" said:

> > > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > > > > > yes, for ~~most of playerbase~~ **me and some others here on the forum** optimalisation (or rather lack of thereoff) is most important factor when asking for new game engine

> > > > > > Fixed that for you. Don't want anyone accusing you of speaking of majorities you cannot prove.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, either the majority of the player base is indeed having problems with the game's optimization or Gw2 has a really rich player base with godly PC's since I have an above average computer and still I struggle to get stable FPS, a sign of poor optimization.

> > > > >

> > > > Except in life things aren't usually either or... This binary style of thinking is part of the problem. Loads of discussions on game forums end up in two sides and there usually are more sides to it.

> > > >

> > > > Take your comment for example.

> > > > You can only see the options that a majority has issues with the optimization or most people have godly PC's as you put it.

> > > >

> > > > But that's an over-simplification. Some people don't care about graphics that much, some people don't do PvP at all, some people don't care about fps that much. Hell some people you'll have to explain what fps actually is.

> > > >

> > > > Also you do not need a godly PC to run this game. You need a good PC when you have a number of requirements. Also you need to have the right combination of hardware to make it work right. I've seen so many people complain with decent computers but one element wrong that creates a bottleneck. Also your internet provided is important and you need the right screen with the right cables etc.

> > >

> > > Just to add to this, I'm not even convinced that the problems people have are much to do with their PCs not being good enough. I definitely don't have a godly PC: it's 7-8 years old, with some components even older, and I expect it's below average for a gaming PC (I can't remember the specs off the top of my head). However, I play the game at maximum graphics settings and have only twice had major FPS problems: once when the karka invaded Lion's Arch (which I think was notorious for that anyway), and once in the Warden Amala fight in Istan.

> >

> > That depends on what you consider to be a "major" FPS problem. Did you measure it? Engine optimization is not a matter of opinions.

>

> By "major" I mean it was low enough for me to notice that the movement wasn't smooth and lasted long enough for it to affect my ability to play the game. While I take your point, I don't think anyone would consider the FPS I have while playing the game to be bad enough to complain about. I'm confident that the people who post about FPS problems on the forum definitely have less stable FPS than me - otherwise they wouldn't have noticed that their FPS is dropping - but at least some, probably most, of them have better PCs than me (based on the specs people have posted and the fact that my PC is old and not that great). From that, I'm concluding that the FPS problems are not just about bad PCs versus good PCs.

 

I am saying that without providing us context for what you consider to be good enough, it appears you are making a baseless assumption about what performance other people are getting from their PCs. That will be safest conclusion until you provide your measured FPS.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

if they do and they don't create a bunch of skills like in the first guild wars, im not buying it.

[Vyrulisse.1246]

I don't think it could because I was there for the GW1 to GW2 transition and they pretty much killed GW1 for their focus on 2. They just stopped. So many things left unfinished forever and I will always have that nagging fear in the back of my mind that they will treat GW2 the same way someday.

[Alin.2468]

Personally, I am against Guild Wars 3, because there are so many things here undelivered, from PvE to PvP to GvG.

 

However, I am aware that new children grow every day, so there will always be buyers for a GW3 game, not knowing or caring about the history behind GW1 and GW2. I also think GW3 will come one day, and new players will buy it and play it like crazy, no matter what I think.

[phokus.8934]

What would GW3 solve that can’t be solved in GW2?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"videoboy.4162" said:

> I wonder if they could go a different route than expected, and make Guild Wars 3 by moving Guild Wars 2 onto a new engine. After getting that engine ready, they could have all our progress and such from Guild Wars 2, but continue the story as Guild Wars 3.

That's not a new game. That's an engine upgrade.

 

If you make a new game, you will end up changing a lot more than just "upgrading" the game engine. Remember, that gw1->gw2 was supposed to be just that - an engine change to allow them to do things old engine didn't allow for. It's just that once they started tinkering, they decided that there were a lot of other things they wanted to change as well. The end result was, well, not something a lot of players wanted. I'm pretty sure that there's still a lot of veterans thinking that there were a ton of things that the previous game did better.

 

And of course, once you change things too much, any idea of account continuity between games becomes problematic. It requires a lot of work, for often dubious results. As such, it's generally better to start afresh with a clean slate, with perhaps just a few perks (like HoM bonuses) given to old players.

 

The problem is, of course, that most players do _not_ like ideas of player wipes and starting afresh. Not when they put a lot of time and effort to get to where they were at. As such, you can probably get away with it once. You are unlikely to be able to push it through twice.

 

 

[Westenev.5289]

A lot of arguments for good ideas essentially boil down to "it's too hard to program in the current engine, case closed". If these problems could be fixed by starting from a blank slate, I could definately see the appeal in GW3.

 

> @"phokus.8934" said:

> What would GW3 solve that can’t be solved in GW2?

 

~ Faster armour releases (their current system is "too complex" from my understanding, often leading to what may as well be multiple copies of an existing item)

~ More optimised engine that doesn't rely on a single core and makes full use of a GFX.

~ More open world content to explore (though, admittedly, this does get old fast)

~ A cool new title (assuming it's set in the future) - Guild Wars 3: Modern Combat

~ New class: Commando.

 

What problems couldn't gw3 fix?

[phokus.8934]

> @"Westenev.5289" said:

> A lot of arguments for good ideas essentially boil down to "it's too hard to program in the current engine, case closed". If these problems could be fixed by starting from a blank slate, I could definately see the appeal in GW3.

>

> > @"phokus.8934" said:

> > What would GW3 solve that can’t be solved in GW2?

>

> ~ Faster armour releases (their current system is "too complex" from my understanding, often leading to what may as well be multiple copies of an existing item)

> ~ More optimised engine that doesn't rely on a single core and makes full use of a GFX.

> ~ More open world content to explore (though, admittedly, this does get old fast)

> ~ A cool new title (assuming it's set in the future) - Guild Wars 3: Modern Combat

> ~ New class: Commando.

>

> What problems couldn't gw3 fix?

Everything you stated can be solved within GW2, though. The framework and fundamentals of the game would/should have to change to warrant GW3.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"phokus.8934" said:

> Everything you stated can be solved within GW2, though. The framework and fundamentals of the game would/should have to change to warrant GW3.

Exactly. And there's no telling whether those changes would gain GW more players than the game would lose due to them.

 

 

[videoboy.4162]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > I wonder if they could go a different route than expected, and make Guild Wars 3 by moving Guild Wars 2 onto a new engine. After getting that engine ready, they could have all our progress and such from Guild Wars 2, but continue the story as Guild Wars 3.

> That's not a new game. That's an engine upgrade.

>

> If you make a new game, you will end up changing a lot more than just "upgrading" the game engine. Remember, that gw1->gw2 was supposed to be just that - an engine change to allow them to do things old engine didn't allow for. It's just that once they started tinkering, they decided that there were a lot of other things they wanted to change as well. The end result was, well, not something a lot of players wanted. I'm pretty sure that there's still a lot of veterans thinking that there were a ton of things that the previous game did better.

>

> And of course, once you change things too much, any idea of account continuity between games becomes problematic. It requires a lot of work, for often dubious results. As such, it's generally better to start afresh with a clean slate, with perhaps just a few perks (like HoM bonuses) given to old players.

>

> The problem is, of course, that most players do _not_ like ideas of player wipes and starting afresh. Not when they put a lot of time and effort to get to where they were at. As such, you can probably get away with it once. You are unlikely to be able to push it through twice.

>

>

 

I know. I was just saying to update the engine and call the next expac "Guild Wars 3."

[Westenev.5289]

> @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > I wonder if they could go a different route than expected, and make Guild Wars 3 by moving Guild Wars 2 onto a new engine. After getting that engine ready, they could have all our progress and such from Guild Wars 2, but continue the story as Guild Wars 3.

> > That's not a new game. That's an engine upgrade.

> >

> > If you make a new game, you will end up changing a lot more than just "upgrading" the game engine. Remember, that gw1->gw2 was supposed to be just that - an engine change to allow them to do things old engine didn't allow for. It's just that once they started tinkering, they decided that there were a lot of other things they wanted to change as well. The end result was, well, not something a lot of players wanted. I'm pretty sure that there's still a lot of veterans thinking that there were a ton of things that the previous game did better.

> >

> > And of course, once you change things too much, any idea of account continuity between games becomes problematic. It requires a lot of work, for often dubious results. As such, it's generally better to start afresh with a clean slate, with perhaps just a few perks (like HoM bonuses) given to old players.

> >

> > The problem is, of course, that most players do _not_ like ideas of player wipes and starting afresh. Not when they put a lot of time and effort to get to where they were at. As such, you can probably get away with it once. You are unlikely to be able to push it through twice.

> >

> >

>

> I know. I was just saying to update the engine and call the next expac "Guild Wars 3."

 

So, basically pull a Runescape?

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

> @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > I wonder if they could go a different route than expected, and make Guild Wars 3 by moving Guild Wars 2 onto a new engine. After getting that engine ready, they could have all our progress and such from Guild Wars 2, but continue the story as Guild Wars 3.

> > That's not a new game. That's an engine upgrade.

> >

> > If you make a new game, you will end up changing a lot more than just "upgrading" the game engine. Remember, that gw1->gw2 was supposed to be just that - an engine change to allow them to do things old engine didn't allow for. It's just that once they started tinkering, they decided that there were a lot of other things they wanted to change as well. The end result was, well, not something a lot of players wanted. I'm pretty sure that there's still a lot of veterans thinking that there were a ton of things that the previous game did better.

> >

> > And of course, once you change things too much, any idea of account continuity between games becomes problematic. It requires a lot of work, for often dubious results. As such, it's generally better to start afresh with a clean slate, with perhaps just a few perks (like HoM bonuses) given to old players.

> >

> > The problem is, of course, that most players do _not_ like ideas of player wipes and starting afresh. Not when they put a lot of time and effort to get to where they were at. As such, you can probably get away with it once. You are unlikely to be able to push it through twice.

> >

> >

>

> I know. I was just saying to update the engine and call the next expac "Guild Wars 3."

 

In other words, pull a fast one on people buying what they think is a new game but it turns out to be the old game with an update?

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > The people who ask for GW3 haven't really invested and gotten the most out of GW2 anyways. Or they just love starting over constantly.

>

> Even with some form of reward system depending on GW2 progress, "losing" my thousands of hours because the new and shiny game releases would make me really, really mad.

 

Well, to be realistic, it wouldn't mean GW2 would be closed down. It's the same scenario as GW1 and GW2 ... I doubt that if there is a GW3, it's going to be similar, if at all, to GW2.

[Tongku.5326]

> @"Opopanax.1803" said:

> Gw3 will happen when the engine is too limited and performance drops too much. Until then, I expect gw2 to remain the focus.

>

> However, it would also not surprise me if we saw some other gw game type, such is an moba, shooter, or mobile gw game from anet. I expect that ncsoft wants them to diversify into mobile platforms.

 

I think GW3 will happen when the general playerbase of GW2 shrinks to a ceirtain number and their projections will tell them it will keep on shrinking to the point that A-Net will not be able to sustain itself financially on the same level and would have to lay off employees.

 

We may actually be not far from that point. They do not have to make any announcements about what they are or are not working on. Many games nowadays work for a few years before they make a public announcement that they are doing so. Take for example Cyberpunk 2077, CDPR released first trailer and announced it more then 5 years ago but its been in development for 3 years prior to that already. Likewise, GW3 may already be in development here but without any announcements to the public.

 

Personally I do hope for GW3. I largely do not log into this game anymore, only sometimes because I don't like what it has turned into. DPS meters, raids, grinds such as griffon mount, etc. all that stuff just kinda ruined it for me.

 

I initially came here for the casual nature of the game but ended up staying longterm because I discovered and got to love WvW. Unfotunately the devs have at 1st neglected it for X years and it has not managed to recover since then even though they are paying attention to it now.

 

So in my eyes I do hope they just put out a GW3 and wipe the slate clean. Return to the basics and stick to them this time around.

 

 

[zealex.9410]

> @"phokus.8934" said:

> > @"Westenev.5289" said:

> > A lot of arguments for good ideas essentially boil down to "it's too hard to program in the current engine, case closed". If these problems could be fixed by starting from a blank slate, I could definately see the appeal in GW3.

> >

> > > @"phokus.8934" said:

> > > What would GW3 solve that can’t be solved in GW2?

> >

> > ~ Faster armour releases (their current system is "too complex" from my understanding, often leading to what may as well be multiple copies of an existing item)

> > ~ More optimised engine that doesn't rely on a single core and makes full use of a GFX.

> > ~ More open world content to explore (though, admittedly, this does get old fast)

> > ~ A cool new title (assuming it's set in the future) - Guild Wars 3: Modern Combat

> > ~ New class: Commando.

> >

> > What problems couldn't gw3 fix?

> Everything you stated can be solved within GW2, though. The framework and fundamentals of the game would/should have to change to warrant GW3.

>

 

It would be easier to write a new code/ engine than try to untangle the current spaget one.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > > I wonder if they could go a different route than expected, and make Guild Wars 3 by moving Guild Wars 2 onto a new engine. After getting that engine ready, they could have all our progress and such from Guild Wars 2, but continue the story as Guild Wars 3.

> > > That's not a new game. That's an engine upgrade.

> > >

> > > If you make a new game, you will end up changing a lot more than just "upgrading" the game engine. Remember, that gw1->gw2 was supposed to be just that - an engine change to allow them to do things old engine didn't allow for. It's just that once they started tinkering, they decided that there were a lot of other things they wanted to change as well. The end result was, well, not something a lot of players wanted. I'm pretty sure that there's still a lot of veterans thinking that there were a ton of things that the previous game did better.

> > >

> > > And of course, once you change things too much, any idea of account continuity between games becomes problematic. It requires a lot of work, for often dubious results. As such, it's generally better to start afresh with a clean slate, with perhaps just a few perks (like HoM bonuses) given to old players.

> > >

> > > The problem is, of course, that most players do _not_ like ideas of player wipes and starting afresh. Not when they put a lot of time and effort to get to where they were at. As such, you can probably get away with it once. You are unlikely to be able to push it through twice.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I know. I was just saying to update the engine and call the next expac "Guild Wars 3."

>

> In other words, pull a fast one on people buying what they think is a new game but it turns out to be the old game with an update?

>

 

Iirc ff14 also under the same treatment. Worked out pretty well for them.