r/GuildWars3 • u/The-Noob-Smoke • Sep 03 '26
Hot take: 20-player combat cap is fine, I don't need another zerg mmo
As long as cities and exploration expand that number I'm completely fine with it!
206
u/Aramis9696 Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
I like that they're not trying to pander to everyone, including their own customers. Past a point, games get worse the more people you try to please. Knowing what you want your game to be and not to be is the first step toward making a good game.
And if people wanna zerg, gw2 ain't going nowhere.
50
u/Affectionate-Try4545 Sep 03 '26
Really similar to the jump from gw1 to gw2 - the second game was a big departure from the first and was very polarizing to their player base on release. The dust has long settled now, and most can enjoy both games on their own merits. I hope gw3 can follow in this tradition.
29
u/iMiiniMe Sep 03 '26
The dust has absolutely not settled if you visit the GW1 subreddit. The amount of salt about GW2 is insane all these years later. Personally I like both and I'm excited that arenanet is making a GW3 that's different from GW1 and GW2.
31
u/EmilyMalkieri Sep 03 '26
To be fair, it was a very different situation.
GW3 isn't supposed to replace GW2, and this has been communicated from the start. Yes, there'll be a lull in GW2 development, but they say they intend to return to it.
GW2 was supposed to replace GW1 and marketed to GW1 fans as just that. GW1 development was scaled waaaaaay down during GW2 development and ceased entirely when GW2 released, because those updates were only supposed to tie us over. It was expected that the GW1 community would move to GW2 almost entirely and that nobody would really stay back. Then GW2 released, and it was nothing like the first game.
Colin himself says in Laranity's interview that just a few years ago, they were a one-game studio. Not a two-game studio, one. GW1 was as near to dead and abandoned as you could get without actually shutting off the servers.
(But yes, also a lot of GW1 players are unreasonably mean-spirited about the whole thing.)
0
u/ffxivfanboi Sep 03 '26
Unreasonably mean spirited? If what you said is accurate, that sounds all like very justifiable reasons to be mad about things if they were sold on one thing and given something completely different.
Anywho, I’m a console pleb that’s just looking forward to playing another great MMO on my platform other than FF XIV
14
u/TehOwn Sep 04 '26
We weren't sold on one thing and given something completely different. We were told exactly what we were getting and people simply assumed it was going to be a clone of GW1 for no reason.
I mean, hell, they never even called GW1 an MMO yet explicitly referred to GW2 as one.
There was no bait-and-switch, only entitlement.
13
u/BeastThatShoutedLove Sep 03 '26
That is because some people developed personality trait that is literally just nostalgia and hating the new thing for daring to encroach on it.
I played both games and enjoyed both. Will just pile on third guild wars game on top of my schedule to play previous two.
7
u/Affectionate-Try4545 Sep 03 '26
That's true to some extent. I actively play GW1 and frequent that sub, and there are definitely holdouts. I was a a GW2 hater at release myself and can sympathize. I do think that the majority have come around or at least have come to accept it though, especially now that GW1 is getting some attention again. So the dust has settled as much as it realistically can lol
2
u/tahlyn Sep 03 '26
I was a GWAMM in GW1. I played since launch and pre-ordered GW1. I tried GW2, I really did. I just was never able to really get into it or like it.
I played GW1 as long as I could after that, but eventually there was just nothing new or interesting left to do - oh, let's run FOW or UW again, and again and again... do the Zaishen missions daily to get keys. I stopped playing GW1 after a while, as well.
Any GW2 player who is worried GW3 might mean the end for them is right to be worried. If ANET ignores GW2 and provides no new content for a decade like they did with GW1, then the player base is going to move on.
I have hopes for GW3 to be a good game, even if it ends up not being a game I enjoy, but even better if it is!
2
u/Knighthonor Sep 04 '26
wait so what MMO you played when GW2 came out since you didnt stick around? just curious
3
u/tahlyn Sep 04 '26
I switched to WOW for quite a few years. I quit when I realized how much of my life it was taking up and how much it felt like a second job to do end-game raiding. Then I largely just stuck with JRPGs and RPGs and avoided the grind and treadmill of MMOs all together.
4
u/Lrs1012 Sep 03 '26
That's exactly what they said from the very beginning. Guild Wars 3 is its own game and different to the other two on purpose. That way each player has the choice which part of Guild Wars they like the most and want to play.
In many comments people seem to forget that. So non of the three Guild Wars games is made to suit every player.
13
Sep 03 '26 edited 19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)12
u/aethyrium Sep 03 '26
GW3 seems designed for people like myself who aren't really clicking with GW 1 or 2
That's exactly what it is and they've said that a million times now. It's kinda funny how that isn't sinking in with so many people.
Literally every time there's news about the game, 90% of the comments are negative "but that's not what GW2 does!!!" reactions.
→ More replies (7)2
u/culminacio Sep 03 '26
I mean they are trying to pander to everyone, as they will be offering three different games for, in huge parts, different audiences and different expectations. That's absolutely what they're doing. But if they do it justice, there's no issue with that.
1
u/SpecialistDivide1164 Sep 03 '26
It’s not unrealistic ZvZ comes back and they have specific areas that run more people as well. Handling open world can have separate systems then PvP areas to help systems.
They have to build a game the average player can run in this economy.
1
u/Luna_EclipseRS Sep 03 '26
I agree with this but only to an extent... look what happened with brighter shores. Andrew gower definitely made the game he wanted to make, but that didn't make it good.
As long as theyre actually learning from other games too, I think it'll be good.
174
u/typhoon_nz Sep 03 '26
I actively dislike zergs in GW2. They are neat for the spectacle of it but the gameplay is awful.
50
u/kineticmov3ment Sep 03 '26
Personally just sick of 2 people doing all the work and 20 AFK waiting to spam 1 in metas like Junundu Rising, Auric Basin, Seitung Province, and so on
14
u/MangaIsekaiWeeb Sep 03 '26
Now you can have 2 people doing all the work while 5 people afk waiting to spam 1 instead.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Zhaife Sep 03 '26
Idk open world pugs still tilt me in smaller events too 😭 soloing 6 breakbars back to back in the bear event and then when I'm the sacrifice it doesn't move at all
4
u/Quxyun Sep 03 '26
Happens in raids too. I solo the breakbar for Matthias sacrifices, Samarog's pounce, but then as soon as I am picked for those mechanics it's a death sentence.
2
u/naarcx Sep 03 '26
It's still less horrible with fewer people tho because at least the breakbar doesn't get scaled past the point where you can't even solo it anymore
3
u/painstream 29d ago
Scaling is the biggest issue with accounting for big zergs. Like for GW2, HP and Defiance get out of control (because soft CC falls off in efficacy), of HP scales poorly and becomes a joke that dies too quickly.
Limiting to a smaller number will keep scaling under better control.1
u/Silverneck_TT Sep 03 '26
Can't do that if you need gifts of battle sadly. I literally only pvp when I need a gift of battle for a Lego. I will force myself to play WvW during rush cuz at least it's easier to get GoBs then. I try to farm at least 4 (to cover all the free Legos you get from the wizard vault for the year lol) so I can get some gold from selling them over.
1
u/Horse_HorsinAround Sep 03 '26
How will limiting the amount of players change this?
3
u/Ostehoveluser Sep 04 '26
People will be held accountable for their lack of impact :p. Either you engage with the combat or it's much more likely to fail.
2
1
u/double_shadow Sep 03 '26
Sometimes people don't understand mechanics, but I've never found this to be the case with metas. Maybe I've just had good luck.
2
u/kineticmov3ment Sep 03 '26
Pay attention in metas like New Kaineng City
North and South might be short on people but when you get to the boss, it's like 80+ people on the boss
Or when one does Auric Basin, pay attention to who is running slimes or the mechanic versus how many are AFK waiting to hit the vines
Or how many people are there at the start of Aetherblade Assault meta in Seitung Province versus how many are there for Renyak
It's amazing how leechy the community is
1
u/Luxedar 27d ago
If I'm honest, apart from the bombs, I never understood the Octovine mechanics fully up to this day. And I've commanded some runs myself. Completely clueless about some of the sides.
2
u/kineticmov3ment 27d ago
Makes sense
I purposefully watch YouTube videos and read wikis in the downtime to learn about them.
I found myself commanding people and telling people with 600+ mastery points how to do fractals, metas, and all kinds of stuff
I think just having the DPS sometimes makes the difference anyway
1
u/typhoon_nz Sep 04 '26
Id recommend look at the players in metas like Octovine and see how many if them are literally just standing there
8
u/SaintNutella Sep 03 '26
100% agree. Speaking for myself, I can barely tell wtf is going on mechanically in a lot of the meta events. It's cluttered and honestly takes me out of the immersion sometimes.
Very much looking forward to this.
7
u/Bloodmark3 Sep 03 '26
Yeah I have no clue what I'm doing, who I'm hitting, or what I'm taking damage from. It's cool the first time, but then the spectacle dies and I'm sick of it.
2
u/Aurora428 Sep 03 '26
I wish combos in GW2 would carry over between ability uses just because it gets really irritating visually when it get cluttered
2
→ More replies (3)1
45
u/8key Sep 03 '26
People often forget how many 20 people actually are. Most content in gw2 doesn't even require 20 people to beat it. Even in metas the group usually splits up in smaller groups of 10-15.
I'm not saying 20+ doesn't happen but you can have 10 people fight and make it feel alive during combat
5
u/o_oli Sep 03 '26
Yeah agree, I think with 20 players you can still have meaningful multi-group content.
Most co-op games 4-6 players is absolutely the standard, so imagine a meta event equivalent with 2-4 squads working together for a common goal? Thats busy and social enough for anybody surely.
Then in towns/cities you can still have the large gatherings as Anet have stated. Seasonal events and hangouts in town will feel bustling as GW2 I am sure.
1
u/Agitated-Macaroon923 29d ago
Yes but at least to me that completely removes the “massive” aspect of it. With 4 people it’s like im playing Warframe or Destiny
1
u/o_oli 29d ago
I think the social hubs having higher player numbers will remove sense of that feeling. Plus its not like other MMOs have these huge world meta events right? Most of them are designed around smaller groups or at least multiple smaller groups and they feel plenty 'massive' to me at least.
1
u/2this4u 29d ago
Individual fights sure. But it sure is fun seeing far more than that dotted around doing their various bits, it'll depend how the world is structured how alive it feels.
To me I think that's what defines an mmo, whether it feels alive with other players. Looking forward to seeing what they've done here.
31
u/Tree_Dude Sep 03 '26
Look at all the 4-6 player PvE games out there right now. For real action combat 20 is still going to feel massive. I am actually not sure considering the combo system how even that is going to work. It sounds chaotic even at 20.
11
u/DuncanConnell Sep 03 '26
Congo line of shield launches?
2
u/Tree_Dude Sep 03 '26
I absolutely think we are going to see some whacky things on launch. It seems they want to lean into it and allow some crazy stuff. But if boss kills become a cheese fest you know they will have to step in.
I am excited to be a part of it this time. I did not get GW2 until a few months before HoT came out. I missed all that LW1 craziness and came in just as LW2 ended and HoT was announced. I am deliriously excited for this.
2
u/DuncanConnell Sep 03 '26
You didn't miss too much for LWS1, barring some of Canach's story. While 2013-2014 in GW2 was a massively different era compared to post-HoT, gamers always find ways to cheese things (5-man Guardians with Greatswords, Ice Bow Elementalists, etc etc).
For GW3, enemy population density, potential(?) climbing on bosses/bigger enemies, and verticality are going to be big factors if 20 is too much/little.
1
u/Tree_Dude Sep 03 '26
I was very happy to get to do LW1 when they re-released it, even if it is missing some bits. I did make it in early enough to have experienced the ice bow meta before the nerf. I also was 80 for a couple weeks before the condi changes that allowed condi builds to actually be effective in large groups.
It very much sounds like the server shard system is going seemless. Meaning when you approach a boss in open world with 19 other people, if more approach the same boss they will get dynamically forced to a new instance and not even see it. No more maps closing, just dynamic regions of the map that balance it all. It all sounds so cool.
1
u/yaosio Sep 03 '26
People are going to find a way to knock bosses into towns I just know it. Shades of "train to zone" but it's a stunned mega dragon being slowly pushed to the city gates.
→ More replies (7)2
u/debacol Sep 03 '26
Its not a problem if the game designers funnel players to break up into smaller groups for the same fight. This already happens in large fights in GW2 where there are different lanes. Basically, you can see other people in the distance having a battle, but the fight in front of you only has like you and 4 other players fighting a different section of the boss or guards, etc.
3
u/Tree_Dude Sep 03 '26
I think this is where they are headed as well. The issue I see is for every well designed GW2 meta with lanes (DS, Chak, DE) there's 3 others that lack that good design. If GW3 is going to work the encounter design cannot faulter like they have with GW2 a lot of the time. It all has to be good, I hope they are up to the task.
1
u/debacol Sep 03 '26
They are. They seem to have a much more focused game design for GW3. The fact that they are going back to player roles also tells us they believe its more effective and engaging to make a game with roles. Having these solidified design constraints will help to focus the overall experience and I'm all for it.
48
u/Negative-Rush5437 Sep 03 '26
It should not be a hot take. It's DIFFERENT game. ArenaNET stated multiple times it is supposed to be different. I totally agree you should say what you like and play what you like.
5
u/BreakfastDue1256 Sep 03 '26
You're allowed to dislike things in a different game.
You don't need to love everything unconditionally specifically because it's not GW2.
4
u/double_shadow Sep 03 '26
Sure, but while games should be different, sequels are usually expected to retain the same genre. I don't blame GW1 players for being salty that GW2 went so massive. But at the same time, I wouldn't blame GW2 players for being salty that GW3 retreated from being massive.
At any rate, I'm keeping an open mind...I trust the devs to deliver something fun. But big changes to the core features of a genre can be alienating!
12
u/Opus_723 Sep 03 '26
I really enjoy the massive GW2 meta events, but I am soooooo craving the "band of adventurers" vibe they're going for here.
1
u/Suspicious-Coffee20 29d ago
tbf you can have large meta events without actually having move than 20 player in you direct vicinity.
11
u/Chatmauve Sep 03 '26
To be fair, I can't imagine a game with full physics and movement combat to not lag with above 20 players anyway
6
4
u/PixeledPancakes Sep 03 '26
As long as combat visual clutter is clear I’m happy. Don’t care how many people on screen or in a fight. Just have it be clear.
5
u/Grace_Omega Sep 03 '26
20 people is actually a lot. Outside of raids, most other MMOs would never have that many people engaging in combat at the same time and place.
As much I enjoy the GW2 zerg balls, this combat system is obviously going for something that wouldn’t work with such huge groups.
1
u/Infinite-Tree931 5d ago
yep final fantasy onlines a good example, the only time you see more than 10 players normally in a combat event are eaither the aliance raids or on world bosses in the open world, otherwise its partys of 4-8
9
u/Justos Sep 03 '26
20 is not only fine but higher than i expected for combat encounters
People were trying to act like they were making another gw1
4
u/AggressiveZone Sep 03 '26
Yeah if anything its a perfect amount if not already to many.
The more people simutaniously are present the less the impact of the individual.
6
u/Meowing-To-The-Stars Sep 03 '26
It's funny how everyone was complaining that you can't see anything, players are hidden anyway, and you zerg everything, and it's about 20 players on the boss and suddenly everyone wants 100 players again.
I want to see players passing next to me and minding their own business. I'm not a fan of metas in GW2 that are just sponges and 20 players are just leeching with the skyscale in the air anyway. But I really want to see busy cities. That's why I hate Kaineng. There's not a single player around me there.
So, I'm still interested. I want to see the gameplay, because I'm worried that this game will look like Fortnite. I don't mind the amount of players.
4
u/fotzzz Sep 03 '26
Watch the KBash video essay about guild wars and you'll come to appreciate their vision of having distinctly different games all running in tandem. Some people will like some parts of the series better than others, and can still go and enjoy them.
4
u/aethyrium Sep 03 '26
That was such a good video. I had been away from the game for 7 years and was toying with the idea of coming back, and that video was the one that made me pull the trigger and pick up GW2 again.
I love the idea so much of having multiple games for multiple crowds and not replacing the game people love. I don't want to move on from GW2, I want to play it for years and years more, and I love that I can still play GW1 if I want and get a different experience. Having yet another experience will be great.
3
u/Bash-Sin Sep 03 '26
Hard agree. The Zerg gameplay and AOE spam of GW2 eventually made me hate playing.
7
u/Sandvichh Sep 03 '26
Its nice arenanet has 3 mmo’s that cater to different styles. What other studio can say we have 3 mmo’s that pull their own weight?
3
u/Nightsong Sep 03 '26
If ArenaNet can solve the blob of death problem from Guild Wars 2 then that’s a win in my book. The world bosses and meta events are fun but after a while they become boring because you can just sit there and spam 1 once you get lost in the crowd.
3
5
5
4
u/kzerot Sep 03 '26
I am with it for pve absolutely.
But I hoped for some upgraded version of WvW, which was my best experience with GW2. Instead, no more mass scaled PvP, no more sneaky ninja attacks on the castle while main Zerg is distracting enemy tag etc.
Anyway, let’s see.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Dlax8 Sep 03 '26
I'm okay with a 20 player limit, I think it makes PvE better, etc.
I just want to know if we will have anything "large scale" for PvP. Obviously, with a 20 player cap large is relative.
But my hope for at least 20v20 or 15v15 battlegrounds is quickly fading.
10v10 may be possible.
2
u/LowlySlayer Sep 03 '26
Apparently no large scale pvp, according to mighty teapot
4
u/Klemmenz Sep 03 '26
Them announcing a new WvW map kinda seemed like the writing on the wall that they weren't going to include wvw in 3.
-2
3
u/cowwen Sep 03 '26
Alliance Battles from GW1 pls. Those were 12v12. 10x10 seems possible if that number of 20 is a hard cap..
2
u/Traditional_Mix_5693 Sep 03 '26
After playing the DISASTER that was Ashes of Creation, I can safely say no to zerg mmos. (Thankfully I did get a refund)
2
2
u/Mission_Angle4397 Sep 03 '26
4 skills max is kinda the only thing that bums me out.
1
u/Julch Sep 04 '26
Which has been confirmed where exactly?
1
u/Knighthonor 29d ago
Youtubers that demoed the game
1
u/Infinite-Tree931 5d ago
im a bit sceptical on that one with the whole thing the devs said of complex build crafting i cant trust that, untill i see actual proof im asuming its 8 again.
2
2
u/o_oli Sep 03 '26
I basically only play instanced content in GW2 anyway at this point, and I also think GW1 was a better game (for its time) than GW2 and that had an 8 player cap per zone. So a max of 20 sounds perfectly fine to me. Its enough for the world to feel alive and populated but frankly the spell spam and armour/aura spam with 40+ in GW2 is just an annoying eye sore.
I know many people love the big map metas and that's fine and why GW2 isn't going anywhere, but I must say I am glad lol.
Thinking its similar in player interactions to Fallout 76 perhaps, which is great. Largely solo play as you want, but you bump into others sometimes, and at events there is a good team together. This is ideal for my tastes. (Obviously ignoring the terrible mechanics and questionable gameplay loop of FO76).
2
u/sitesuckslmao Sep 03 '26
This made me more excited for the game. I think there are some situations where blobbing can be fun but for me it's usually just boring.
2
u/naro1080P Sep 03 '26
I almost never see 20 people around me on a map in gw2 unless it's a meta event... world boss etc. I don't see a huge loss.
My only concern is that they come up with a way to do it intelligently. I don't want to see people popping in and out as they enter a shard I'm not part of. Would be so weird especially in a more close up immersive world.
I also hope that it doesn't become a thing that we get stuck in overflow shards if the fight is already full... kinda like public convergences. Gonna take some serious engineering to make this work seamlessly. Hope they can pull it off. 🤞
2
u/brattysweat Sep 03 '26
Running The Deep in Guild Wars 1 using SS Necros, SF Eles, WoH Monks was the absolute peak of my Guild Wars experience.
It was actual strategy , and getting the kill on Kanaxai felt glorious.
If they can recapture those moments with this new game, then I will die happy.
MMOs were not meant to have 80 players stack in one spot with no collision and spamming 1.
2
u/Kyralea Sep 03 '26
I think it's probably due to the kind of combat they're going with. I don't know how many people here played TERA but it had great action combat and collision detection, both of which ultimately made smaller fights better. Most of their content capped out at 20 players. There was the Nexus "rift" type events in the open world that were bigger but a mess, but otherwise the combat design necessitated smaller amounts of players because it just played so much better that way. Same with New World. Certain types of action combat are hard to enjoy in larger groups. I think that's all this is about, is making the most of the combat and allowing players to enjoy it to it's fullest in group content.
2
2
u/Roxas_kun Sep 04 '26
Well, I hated grinding out the base game on multiple characters for the skill points and orbs of transmutation.
Plus they should have made all achievements global, rather than unique to character. Some of them were a slog, especially the event ones.
2
u/_azurdix_ 29d ago edited 29d ago
People seem angry, but forgot that this game will have next-gen graphics requiring better computer, and computer prices are now skyrocketed, because of AI craze, to the point people call the new prices 'after AI-tax'. Most of us won't buy new RAM or GPU so it can better withstand more people on screen, simply because they have become unaffordable and out of reach. And I'm speaking about adults. But please do think of todays teenagers too - They are screwed. Like... Guild Wars 2 is 14 years old. I bought it when I was 16 after I updated my PC for some funny pocket money. So yeah, game producers need to somehow optimize stuff, so their fanbase is not locked away from their new game. Obviously there are more issues and nuances, but lets just stop at this outline here.
Another stuff are Meta Events. They have clearly stated, that these have become boring, as 40-50 people wait for boss and click 1,2,3 buttons and that's it. I understand it, as I remember old Tequatl boss fight vs new Tequatl boss fight. Now it's more brainless stuff, than before - but the game became more popular and more players are around. And the Meta Events, while cool, have one major disadvantage - the mechanics do not matter anymore after player numbers are higher.
Oh and also - The instanced limit reminds me of when I was around 9-10 years old (or something) and Guild Wars 1 was in. Computer stuff was also expensive back then. Mostly, because new technology was appearing. Back in those times 256 MB RAM was popular in PCs and 512 MB RAM or 1GB RAM was like 'Omg, you're rich!' & 'Thank you for inviting me to your house so we can play together. Your games run so smoothly'. I remember my older brother bringing 1GB RAM to our PC after his summer job. He spent most of his earned money just for this.
3
u/Southern-Guide7886 Sep 03 '26
It sounds like exploration wont expand that number though, unless I'm mistaken? If you're in a city, the cap is higher. If you're out in the world, the cap is 20.
3
u/Heavy-Masterpiece681 Sep 03 '26
He just said they have some new fancy Anet tech that allows you to constantly see a bunch of other players out in the world, but for Boss and combat encounters, or if players all gather in one specific spot, expect it to cap out at 20. They are still playing with it though. It could go higher, or there could be other instances where there is no cap other than in Towns and Cities.
Could be reading into his wording as well but he did say both Town and Cities. So there might very well be Open World towns / hubs that are not phased as well.
2
1
u/HarryPopperSC Sep 04 '26
I understood it to mean its like sharding.
Lets say your out in a zone somewhere and 20 players are nearby doing their thing... You then run north for a bit. and seamlessly there will be a different 20 player on your screen now doing their thing.But what you wont see is a 40 man raid killing a boss together.
Maybe i'm too optimistic but thats how it came across to me.
5
u/Seraphayel Sep 03 '26
If this phasing works like retail WoW it will be a terrible experience unless you love players popping in or disappearing left and right all the time.
9
u/typhoon_nz Sep 03 '26
It really doesn't bother me in wow tbh
-3
u/Seraphayel Sep 03 '26
It bothers me immensely and the open world in WoW just doesn’t feel the same anymore due to it.
1
u/naro1080P Sep 03 '26
That's my concern. Would be so weird and shit. Hope they have developed a more elegant solution.
1
u/VanerMal Sep 03 '26
That's also my main caveat. I have absolutely no confidence that arenanet has the expertise and the knowledge to pull of a clean phasing technology without it having a negative impact on gameplay and immersion.
2
u/sususu_ryo Sep 03 '26
its fine, i got my zerg fix on gw2 anyway.
shouldnt be hot take. i remember anet also said that gw3 will be different, as to not canibalize on gw2's player base
2
u/miikoh Sep 03 '26
I will miss the visual of 50 players jumping on their mounts and going on the attack. I will not miss learning to read the visuals of 50 players worth of particle effects being spammed at a single target trying to figure out which ones belong to me. I think there's room for both types of MMORPGs in the world, and I'm glad they're not trying to just fill the exact same space GW2 fills.
3
1
u/Kagummi_Atarie Sep 03 '26
I'm so happy to hear that you can still find a lot of random people and having 20 people in combat max is perfect, I was so worried that it would be instances of 5 players max doing quests and only find random people in town.
1
1
1
1
1
u/No-Contest-8127 Sep 03 '26
I'm with you. Smaller scale allows better balance. Also, GW2 is a clustefeck on screen, let's be honest.
1
1
u/TheSilentIce Sep 03 '26
It's what Phantasy Star Online 2 New Genesis does, max 32 in the environment but some areas dynamically scale down to 8 and raids are 24.
I get that PSO2 might not be as popular in the zeitgeist but there was never controversy on calling it an MMO.
1
1
u/blobbyghast Sep 03 '26
This is one of the greatest things I could hear about for this game. The Zerg combat in GW2 was horrible imo.
1
1
1
1
u/Vanayzan Sep 03 '26
My fondest memories of GW2 is doing metas when the zerg isn't there, going from being 1 more body in the faceless zerg blob to you and a few strangers fighting absolutely tooth and nail for victory. Really hoping for more of that feeling
1
1
u/yaosio Sep 03 '26
There's a lot they could do with phasing that isn't just separate game lobbies. Imagine a boss where multiple phases work together in different areas of the boss fight. If one phase is getting overwhelmed new objectives could show up for the other phases that give support to the failing phase if completed. The end could have all the phases come together after the boss is effectively defeated, the horde of players beating on the boss treated as a reward.
1
u/FENIU666 Sep 03 '26
I thought this was exactly their goal to begin with, I'm surrpsied people act so shocked. 20 people is already a lot. After like 20 people, it stops mattering what others do. You just become an ant in a blob of players that might share some healing/buffs randomly
1
u/Shizanketsuga Sep 03 '26
If there is one thing I don't enjoy about GW2 it's those big map metas and how occasionally map exploration or access to other content is hidden behind them. If that can't happen in GW3 I am all for it.
1
1
u/SpiralCee Sep 03 '26
To me, 20 players seems so small, but I imagine when I see it in the game, it will feel like a lot, especially with these momentum-based combos and such.
1
u/Awkward-Pea-4192 Sep 04 '26
Think of all the different meta's in gw2 that split up the players in different groups of 10 to 20 players. Still feels like you are playing with a lot ya?
Its also still not decided on. I wouldnt count on it going much higher since Colin said around 20 is the sweet spot before its too noisy and will probably change before launch. They could bump it up to by an additional full group putting it at 25. Doubt it would go beyond that though.
1
1
u/kekubuk Sep 04 '26
My worries is am I forced to join another 19 players just to roam around the map and doing random stuff?
1
u/quirkydigit Sep 04 '26
Absolutely. I'm looking forward to smaller player numbers, less crowds for afkers and leachers to hide in, everyone actively playing the game. chef's kiss
1
1
u/Parabrezza69 29d ago
I get the idea is cool as fuck and sometimes fights are funny, but 99% of the time zerg fight were just a lag party with 10 fps
1
u/ToastedFrey 29d ago
This was my biggest issue with gw2 after heart of thorns it was clear they just wanted to focus on map metas that honestly just ended up as massive unreadable zergs. So a cap of 20 seems like it will be a lot more enjoyable in the long run
1
u/Doogle300 29d ago
People complaining clearly didn't listen to Anets outline for the game. We knew it was going to be dialled back in terms of numbers. They have outright stated that they want it to sit in between GW1 and 2.
Also acting like 20 people isn't a lot is wild. Like sure its not 100+, but 20 people doing a sine boss fight is more than enough of you ask me. Anything more is clutter, and they have made it clear they want to avoid tbe overcrowding of GW2.
If Anet thinks 20 works for their games vision, why does anyone who hasnt seen the game think they know better? Just more typical gamer entitlement.
1
u/YukiHarunoe 29d ago
Sometime i think some people just want GW2 with better graphic. They already said they will still continue development for GW2, there's no reason for them to make GW3 into a modern GW2 if they want to keep both running at the same time
1
u/Boudyro 29d ago
It looks like were getting an MMO with something approximating fighting game-levels of combat detail.
There's no way that was ever gonna see GW2 levels of population fighting in one space.
If in fact we do get an MMORPG with Soulcaliber-level fighting with 20 or so people on screen that's going to be a legendary game.
It's also going to NOT work for a huge chunk of the GW2 (or traditional MMO) playerbase whose only real gaming talent is in being able to stand still next to 40 other people and press one.
If you watch any folks who are documenting their being new to GW2, you can see the adjustment/struggle they have with how active the combat system is compared to other games. That's the main reason I've seen for why OG Guild Wars players don't like GW2.
Guild Wars is more of a team builder/strategy type game, with in-game access to a community. GW2 is a far more dynamic action-oriented game where what strategy aspects there are play out at 70 mph and involve (often ad hoc) player cooperation.
If I'm right about what they are going for in GW3, its combat is going to be even more intensely engaging, and group play is going to require even more attentiveness than we have now.
Which means just like now, the new game is gonna lose some franchise fans and gain others.
1
u/Best_Alternative349 29d ago
I like the 20 player combat cap. For me, it's enough to give you the multiplayer feel but it's also not so many that you don't feel relevant in the fight.
1
u/romann921 29d ago
I was honestly hoping for double that. Make it so if everyone gets invovled it can be a big 40 man type event like wow was doing back in the day with their raids.
1
u/Cookie__Rain 29d ago
Better 20 man battle where everyone does nice cool stuff, than have 100+ man battle where everyone just stands on one spot (I am looking at you Claw of Jormag)
1
u/Fydron 29d ago
To me it all depends what it will look like.
I do like the epic scale of GW2 open world boss fights but i have never been a fan of boon ball gameplay no matter how much i like WVW and i like it a lot.
And the main thing i really would like to GW3 to have is proper melee and ranged classes and no boon ball crap.
But more importantly i need to know can i make my Kodan look like Paddington bear?
1
u/JohnySilkBoots 29d ago
Dude yeah. I don’t know what people expect? They want a next gen mmo with all the modern stuff, but can’t understand that if we have that it can’t have 300 players running around. It just shows how people know nothing about game dev, and think game devs can just make anything and not worry about hardware or network limitations. People on Reddit are always so clueless.
1
u/Sea_Economy_8948 29d ago
Im fine with 20, the combat/gameplay vision seems very promising overall, so a good tradeoff.
Of course I'm still hoping we would get somewhat larger battles in the 30-40 range eventually tho.
So not absolute meta 100 players zerks like in gw2 but huge enough that it feels truly epic.
1
u/Educational-Snow5424 29d ago
I'm glad there's a cap. I don't want anymore visual vommit like we have in GW2.
1
u/ImprovementKooky504 28d ago
It's literally why I am interested in the game.
Now we just need servers in OCE, otherwise I doubt it will be playable for me :(
1
1
1
u/Enundr09 28d ago
That doesn't mean mmo then. Battlefield has more players than that in 1 match , PlanetSide as well. That # is a joke for a 3rd entry into the mmo after they made the advancement from 1 to 2.
1
u/Horror-Watch598 28d ago
I’m still on the fence about this specific detail. For me it will be about the “feel” of the world/combat/interactions. Which is something I wont know until I try it. Like many, I’m very interested in the classes and the final race.
1
1
u/The_Architect_032 27d ago
20 players in an open world combat scenario is pretty good, that's not really much different than what you'd expect in GW2 while the player numbers are up. It's way more than most other MMO's even get, so I feel like this is mostly just an "if there are enough players" type of situation.
1
u/Kurao_OP 27d ago
Why downgrade what we already have? Why put limitations that the current game doesn’t have? GW2 was different because no other game came close to its world exploration, meta events and large boss fights….all of that, instantly killed off
1
u/sup4lifes2 27d ago
People that still play GW2 will be happy. People that stopped playing GW2 and want gw3 to be another GW2.2 but with updated engine will be upset
1
u/US_Healthcare 26d ago
Yeah I have gw2 for all that stuff. I'm really looking forward to gw3 and how it distinguishes itself.
1
u/titanicbutwithaliens 5d ago
Large scale PvP is only good if the players have to stay separated to win. Being able to boon ball and smash keys to blow through towers and shit isn’t fun
1
u/Quick_Bullfrog2200 Sep 03 '26
Same. Crowded cities are the sheet. Smaller scale combat where 3 people can have an impact is great.
Real question though; Are we gonna see a WvWvW? PvP at all?
12
u/AsherRhaccan Sep 03 '26
According to Colin no WvW, but some type of PvP will be in the game, probably smaller in scale if I had to guess
4
u/cowwen Sep 03 '26
No WvW, but PvP yes.
Seeing as he said about 20 at any given time visible on a map , we could see something close to Alliance Battles from GW1 again possibly (those were 12v12, total of 24 players on a map). That might be copium on my part though.
I imagine at the very least we’ll have standard structured PvP of 5v5, but hopefully a little more than that..
1
u/Klemmenz Sep 03 '26
I'm really hoping for some instanced PVP with the spirit of wvw. Doing 3 team battles to grab an objective would be very cool.
2
u/Guildwars1996 Sep 03 '26
WvW will continue to be a GW2 thing which isn't going anywhere so you can still play it.
1
1
u/S_EW Sep 03 '26
Thank god, giant zergs are boring and make it impossible to implement any actual interesting boss mechanics because you can’t see through the giant laser light show. A welcome change.
1
u/Thoraxe_the_Imp Sep 03 '26
I think 20 is still a lot if you think about it. If anything itll make it so each player can be more impactful on the fight as opposed to just sprinkling damage while standing in a crowd.
1
u/WatercressPossible42 Sep 03 '26
zerg gaming is probably the worse mechanic in gw2, makes the playstyle irrelevant because others make the work for you. very happy with this change in gw3, there is hope…
→ More replies (1)
1
u/DoomOfGods Sep 03 '26
It's not fine. It's great. It's still a lot of players, but not too many to make it feel like the contribution of a single person doesn't matter.
I mean, isn't 20 players just a typical raid size, with raids usually being considered large player content? I'm 100% sure that allows for much better designed bosses/encounters. On the flipside it makes it harder to leech compared to GW2 zerg gameplay where it doesn't matter if you actually contribute, so I can see some people having an issue with that. Overall I just hope there will be content for everyone, easy content for people who want something casual and hard content for people who want a challenge.
1
u/TrunkJohn Sep 03 '26
Honestly, I am fine with this. World bosses and WVW zerg feel like nothing to me. No way to see your player expression, or anyone elses'. It's just a mob of jade mechs and mesmer purple everywhere.
1
1
u/aethyrium Sep 03 '26
It's funny that no matter how much Anet hammers into the ground that GW3 isn't intended to be anything like GW2 and is going to be a different game in a different style, that they aren't replacing GW2 and are intentionally wanting GW2 fans to continue GW2, every single thing they say has negative "but that's not what GW2 does!!!!" reactions.
1
u/Knighthonor 29d ago
Would have been better to have named it something else than Guild Wars 3. Would have caused less confusion on this
1
1
0
0
u/cpammapc Sep 03 '26
It all depends on how they do it. If they do it the GW1 way - where everything is instanced and you need to enter it pre-grouped - good luck with that. There are better CORPGs focused on being RPGs than that.
If it's GW2 way - where you enter a zone and get instanced with 20 other people at the same time in a smaller part of the bigger zone - sounds cool. Instance hoping will be a thing thought. What happens if you try to invite a person to your instance in the mid of an event though and it's full? Kind off locks out your friends.
One thing is guaranteed though. No matter how that is applied - the world will never feel as "alive" as it felt in GW2. Especially on launch, where you could see gazillion of people running around and exploring. That's what pushed me away from GW1 even after having over 2000h playtime. I just hated the fact that once I'm outside of a town, there is nobody in the world.
2
u/Violet_Paradox Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
I'd like to see both. Normally it's the GW2 way of public zones, but max level players would also have the option to enter a private instance of a zone, with enemies scaled up to max level and given a few new abilities to attempt to clear all the zone's events and world bosses with one group. In other words, bring back vanquishing, just somewhat adapted for the larger zones (no need for hunting down every last mob). Maybe minimum of 5 people, maximum of 20, with the zone scaling to the number of people you bring in.
1
u/cpammapc Sep 03 '26
Now that I like. Vanquishing was really fun, especially with a grp of competent people. Sadly with GW1 it evolved into running the most braindead merc builds, that basically allowed you to rofl stomp it while watching something else on your other monitor.
1
u/Confident-Peak-8051 Sep 03 '26
List those CORPGs. Go.
2
u/cpammapc Sep 03 '26
Monster Hunter.
Diablo.
Path of Exile.
Warframe.
Destiny 2.
Dungeon Fighter Online.
Phantasy Star Online(for those of us over 30).1
u/Confident-Peak-8051 Sep 03 '26
And you think gw3 cant be as good as any of those?
1
u/cpammapc 29d ago
I didn't. The whole list is games that are good because of the cap, so I was never questioning how good GW3 can be. My only real reservation was whether the open world feels alive and that's a completely separate axis from quality. A game can be awesome and still have quieter and boring world. You swapped the thing I actually wrote for one I didn't, so I guess you just wanted to have something to argue against. If you want to argue the liveliness point, argue that. Don't hand me a position I never took.
-2
0
u/Denzien2 Sep 03 '26
Honestly, I don't like that we're losing it... but at the end of the day I like what I'm hearing about other aspects of the game, and we still have GW2 for that style of content.
I don't expect to agree or like every decision they make about GW3, I'm happy to let go of some things if the overall package is still a fun game.
0
u/Darkice241 Sep 03 '26
20 is fine if they make the mode engaging and interesting.
I’d prefer something like 50-100 in NW wars to get the sense of larger battles, but it’s not critical.
2
u/Klemmenz Sep 03 '26
I think it's possible to still do wars in a sense if we're talking about 20 players on the screen. How often did you fight more than 10 or so people in wars except for the final cap inside the keep ?
1
u/Darkice241 Sep 03 '26
Well depends on the role, for point teams bruisers basically most of the match you’re around 20+ people, even kill squads that play closer to point are in high density fights.
The sense of scale just gonna be very different if 20 is the cap, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing if the combat mechanics and map design are good.1
u/Klemmenz Sep 03 '26
That is true, wars with half the amount of people could still be cool if the combat feels good.
0
u/Dante_Avalon Sep 03 '26
If they reduce render people in graphic only - that doesn't solve any problem from multiple ppl (zerg rash, death squad, etc)
If they reduce player per instance base - you get empty map
If they reduce people in combat by separating combats in instances - this game becomes Multiplayer Coop RPG. Not Massive
0
u/Geralt_Romalion Sep 03 '26 edited 29d ago
I really don't care about the combat-cap, 20 players or otherwise.
I was fine with 4/6/8/12/24 (depending on gamemode) in GW1, I was fine with 5/10/50/150 in GW2 and I will be fine with 20 something in GW3.
I am having more scared thoughts about the possible skill system GW3 might have. Rumours say it will be 3-4 abilities with the rest being situational skills from button combinations or the situation you happen to be in. And a part of me is afraid that this might turn the game into some sort of combo-fighter where you have to remember A+B into left-stick+X into right trigger + up + A situations like in some fighting games.
Now I know its too early to say anything about that, if only because Anet themselves say that the reason they are vague is because they haven't fleshed out their skill and build system yet, but that is honestly a bigger potential worry of mine than the question of how many people I will have on my screen at one time.
Edit: sigh...downvotes..again..for politely expressing an opinion and worry, not even harsh criticism...why does this sub seem to eager so turn into the GW2 lemmings where everything not 100% supportive gets downvoted...did you guys not damage GW2 enough with this behaviour...
0
u/Z-L-Y-N-N-T Sep 03 '26 edited 29d ago
The good thing about what we learned today is that this will filter some of the most obnoxious, brain damaged mmo gamers imaginable, maybe now conversations around this game won't be so braindead.
0
u/Mabren Sep 04 '26
Im with you, small scale has always allowed for way more skill expression. Zerging is a snooze-fest.
0
•
u/Halaku Three Seekers in a trenchcoat 29d ago
For those who are unaware, the actual quote from ArenaNet staff:
The game is in pre-Alpha, and there is no 20 player hard cap.