'Conquest Mode' In Guild Wars Expansion 27
Rich Powers writes "Gamespy interviews NCSoft's Jeff Strain about the new meta game players can expect when Guild Wars: Factions arrives in Q2 2006. Like other MMORPGs (notably World of Warcraft), the new expansion will allow players to fight over territories and even conquer them. But now they can form alliances with other guilds and, as Strain indicates, even take over the world. The article also mentions the advent of a FPS-like player-vs-player mode where opposing teams attack the enemy's supply lines. Hopefully the trend of player-driven content will continue across the genre."
From TFA: (Score:3, Interesting)
The last time I played it, WoW had nothing like this (and AFAIK still doesn't). This is more akin to the factions in DAoC, from what I understand. It certainly sounds interesting, and I really wish I'd picked up Guild Wars last year instead of WoW - this one looks like it's heading in a direction I'm much more into.
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
No reason for regret, except you've then 'lost' all the time you spent grinding in WoW -- but, as I see it, that time's lost already (as I am personally painfully aware).
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
I love guildwars but I must say that you may still find something similar happening...just not because of grinding. Some of the higher level quests are pretty near impossible to beat with henchmen and really hard to find other high level players to go on the mission with you. Most of the time I can find people to join me or just gra
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Also, there's a few others toward the end like Final Assault where it's pretty hard to beat without splitting up. If you've got a trick to make henchmen split up, I'd love to learn it. Maybe you can beat them all without splitting up but I haven't figured it out yet. I imagine some professions might be better at going solo t
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually was kinda blah on the expansion, I really expected a quick knock-off like most expansions are. But from all the information, as well as seeing some of the new skills, ArenaNet really have their act together and Guild Wars pr
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Re:From TFA: (Score:2)
Neither makes any changes to the rest of the game, aside from earning a bit of honor, factional reputation, and maybe an item or two. None of the towns or graveyards o
Sounds like Eve (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like Eve (Score:1)
Guild Wars OTOH is a blast and because there are no subs I can just dip into as and when I feel like it and not worry that I'm wasting a subscriptions if I'm not logging 8 hours a night.
Re:Sounds like Eve (Score:2)
I got bored mining very quickly. But there is plenty of stuff to do in Eve besides mining. I built a combat ship and started doing missions, got a shuttle and did some exploring, and I'm about to buy an industrial ship to do some trading. I haven't mined in some time (probably will do some more at some point, but it's pretty damn boring).
The thing I like about Eve is the social component. Even when I'm jumping around waiting forever to travel between syst
Re:Sounds like Eve (Score:2)
Taking over the world (Score:3, Interesting)
Even in games where the landholdings are small, alliances form and the bloated conglomerate reigns. Granted, the alliances get to have their fun in the initial battles, but for anyone who comes later the odds are often overwhelmingly against them, with the alliances shifting their resistance force without much problem to where needed to hold that land.
There needs to be some kind of balance - the more holdings you own the worse the corruption (as in the Civilisation series), so that after a number of holdings it becomes inefficient to attack a new area unless an old one is relinquished. That way the large groups will move to more prosperous areas (leaving a low value area behind), requiring momentum in play to maintain value. The low value area, presumably taken by a smaller group, will become more prosperous over time again (less corruption for a smaller group); while as usual this idea is probably exploitable in various ways, at least it gives the game more action, less stagnation, and will draw a heck of a lot more holding power. Games are a lot more interesting if there's a pressure to stay on the form you had.
One drawback here is that smaller players - a handful of hours per week rather than massive chunks of time spent in game - will become a target when any land held is more prosperous, and it'd be tiresome to be attacked over and over just as land becomes useful - but at least it's a start, and should keep the game interesting for a lot longer.
Disclaimer: I am not a GW player, and don't know the game mechanics. And kinda got carried away a little with the idea. But I've seen enough stagnant powermongers to put me off for a bit, so something more dynamic and interesting like this would be novel enough to give a fair bit more pull.
Re:Taking over the world (Score:1)
For example, in the current chapter, guilds, or even pick up groups, can fight in a certain arena against other grou
Re:Taking over the world (Score:1)
I think it's a bad idea to allow a group the option to conquer a virtual world, because in most cases any group motivated enough to do so are not likely to be the "benevolent ruler" types. And that's not good for anyone else playing the game, who then become impediments in the way of the ruler's "keeping" the world. It starts the vicious cycle of "clawing your way to the top and
Re:Taking over the world (Score:1)
Territory Conquest... (Score:2)
On an unrelated note: I don't think I would like GW. It seems like it would be much the same play experience as Diablo 2, only in 3D and with an in-game lobby.
Re:Territory Conquest... (Score:1)
I haven't played it since the ATI free 10 hour trial thing, but its not bad. I probably would have bou
Re:Territory Conquest... (Score:2)
Re:Territory Conquest... (Score:1)
Re:Territory Conquest... (Score:1)
even the best players in the world can be defeated by a player who was prepared. Even the most powerful builds can be rendered useless by a few strategic skills chosen at the start of a match.
the only thing GW *doesn't* have is the addictiveness of World of Warcraft. But, it doesn't need it. The company doesn't have to get you to renew on a monthly basis, so they don't have to restrict access to stu
almost... (Score:2)
It also doesn't have the ability to jump over even a slight bump in the game world. Or to slide down a steep incline. The contrived pathing in the game drove me nuts. I can see a spot two feet away from me, but I have to wander around this path to get there because there is a two foot drop to that spot.
I'm sure most people don't care about that, but as a player who loves exploring and clambering all around the landscape it was irrit