Curse

qvtkc · Mar 03, 2010, 05:36 PM // 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deakon

But you don't trim the living limbs from a tree so the dying ones have a chance to survive.

Um... Actually...
Oh well, never mind. Just don't take up gardening.

Deakon · Mar 03, 2010, 05:40 PM // 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by qvtkc

Um... Actually...
Oh well, never mind. Just don't take up gardening.

lol! Trim not prune. I used to be quite the closet farmer.

Amy Awien · Mar 03, 2010, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deakon

Do you understand what socialism is? You just claimed socialism has nothing to do with it then, in the same paragraph, explained how socialism is the intended way to play.

From wiki:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that has transcended commodity production and wage labor, where economic activity is carried out to maximize use-value as opposed to exchange-value and thus a corresponding change in social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and resource allocation; often implying advocacy for a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

I think we have different views as to what socialism is, unless you can explain how the wiki-definition applies to what I described as what I thought was the intended way of playing: "GW's PvE - and it's PvP - were intended to be played cooperatively, in groups, as is evidenced by the fact that groups of 4, 6 and 8 characters can be - and are expected to be - formed for missions and quests."

Quote:

If I want to solo or h/h, then I'm being anti-social but still enjoying my purchase in a way I'm happy with. ...

Ah, well socialism and (anti-)social are different things. The discussion is about 1-2 character farms, speedclears and mission/dungeon running, not about H&H through missions and quests.

Deakon · Mar 03, 2010, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

From wiki:I think we have different views as to what socialism is, unless you can explain how the wiki-definition applies to what I described as what I thought was the intended way of playing: "GW's PvE - and it's PvP - were intended to be played cooperatively, in groups, as is evidenced by the fact that groups of 4, 6 and 8 characters can be - and are expected to be - formed for missions and quests."

Ah, well socialism and (anti-)social are different things. The discussion is about 1-2 character farms, speedclears and mission/dungeon running, not about H&H through missions and quests.

I was actually referring to a more utopian type of socialism and not a form of government but whatever. I'm well aware of what this discussion is about. I'm pointing out that the recent changes that were intended to stop the speed clears and mission/dungeon running DID NOT stop them but instead screwed up perfectly fine (according to Anet) methods of farming.

It's the same flawed logic that anti-gun people have. Some abuse so take away from all. Although I've never participated in speed clears etc. I'm still pro-choice.

Gony · Mar 03, 2010, 07:10 PM // 19:10

Back to original poster, away from AI...

What about giving monsters a randomized skill pool?

Each monster type would have a few definitive skills that would stay static, (a couple synergizing skills that fit well to their species and class), and then at least one or two slots for random skills selected from a pool specific to their area?

For example, a shing jea mantid would get it's usual basic skills, then a random chance at a small pool of not too powerful skills in addition. Later Echovald warrens would get three to five skills each that stay on their bar, and then at least a couple slots randomly chosen from pretty much every skill available at that stage in the game (all core, almost all factions skills).

Working with builds posted earlier:

Warden of Forests: None Shall Pass, Counter Blow, Devastating Hammer, Healing Signet. (three slots with random Tactics, Srength, Hammer attack skills respectively)
Warden of Winds: Barbed Trap, Brambles, Lacerate, Splinter Shot, Snare, Troll Unguent. (slots for random expertise, marks skills)
Warden of the Spirit: Cry of Frustration, Energy Surge, Shatter Enchantment, Shatter Hex. (slots for random dom, insp and FC skills)
Warden of Earth: Ash Blast, Aura of Restoration, Churning Earth, Glyph of Lesser Energy, Shockwave, Stoning. (slots for random Earth magic and ES skills
Warden of Seasons: Ancestor's Rage, Consume Soul, Recuperation, Spirit Light, Splinter Weapon, Weapon of Warding, Wielder's Boon. (Slots for random Resto and Spawning skills)

Their basic builds and elites would remain static, so you could prepare your balanced party well to deal with them, but they should hold enough surprises to make SCs much more difficult for the niche builds used to exploit them...

Martin Alvito · Mar 03, 2010, 07:28 PM // 19:28

@ OP: The short answer is that making the monsters smarter/more efficient makes them die less. Unless ANet credibly commits to increase the loot/kill ratio (improbable for a host of reasons), loot-motivated players such as farmers are incentivized to NOT tell them how to fix their game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gony

What about giving monsters a randomized skill pool?

Works if the SC mechanism isn't sufficiently overpowered. If you wanted to house something like the old SF, you would have to include a lot of "random" skill combinations that wreck SF. People will still SC unless you make the SC inefficient relative to the alternatives, irrespective of whether it's 10% or 75% faster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deakon

It's the same flawed logic that anti-gun people have. Some abuse so take away from all.

That logic isn't necessarily flawed. It depends on how much you value the freedom to use the gun, relative to the cost of the abuses. You have stipulated one preference ordering; your opponents another. Doesn't make either of you "right".

Deakon · Mar 03, 2010, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

That logic isn't necessarily flawed. It depends on how much you value the freedom to use the gun, relative to the cost of the abuses. You have stipulated one preference ordering; your opponents another. Doesn't make either of you "right".

Agreed somewhat... Loss of freedom is NEVER right. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all I can hear is *squeak, squeak. squeak* whenever logic enters the debate. This topic, currently under several threads, has become as much fun as playing GW and almost as equally rewarding. I've said enough on this topic. Arguing against tyrants avails naught. I'll sit back now, keep my mouth shut and let the elite mandate my game play. It's obvious that my enjoyment and opinions are not as valid as others'.

I was looking forward to GW2 but with the XTH fiasco and now this major fail of an already months late update, I doubt very seriously I'll bother. When does Diablo III release?

Martin Alvito · Mar 03, 2010, 08:18 PM // 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deakon

Agreed somewhat... Loss of freedom is NEVER right.

Which is precisely my point. You place an extremely high value on specific freedoms. That's a very Jeffersonian approach to the problem. Other people may look at the same situation and bring something like Mill to the table.

Guns don't kill people. They just reduce the transaction cost. But that's causal; people get killed at the margin as a result of that reduction. From the standpoint of someone killed at the margin, that cost is infinite. So from a utilitarian perspective, one life saved justifies the cost to individual liberty.

And with that, enough derailing. Feel free to post a response; you may have the last word. If you want to go further than that I'm happy to chat via PM.

OT: Yes, the core issue under debate (should farms be nerfed) spans multiple threads right now. ANet took a very specific stance early in the run of GW: solo farms => bots => easy RMT = bad. Ursan and SF were both group farms that got the axe for the same underlying reason as botting - both create an undesirable externality for the more casual player that ANet perceives to be their core audience.

(Yes, I realize that SF only partially bought the farm.)

It's obvious that some segment of the audience prefers that degenerate builds like Ursan and SF exist. What is not so clear is whether or not ANet is hurting or helping GW2 sales by nerfing such builds.

Lanier · Mar 03, 2010, 08:48 PM // 20:48

So back to the OP:

I agree completely. The monsters in PvE are aweful and need reworkings of their skillbars. I was always of the opinion that every monster group in PvE should have two "healers" and should have monsters with full bars of skills that make since being there. PvE is way too easy and it would bring a lot more challenge and fun back into the game if Anet would buff the E in PvE. Sadly... I dont see this ever happening.

Yelling @ Cats · Mar 03, 2010, 08:56 PM // 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-Bigz

I have said the same thing in multiple other threads that are 'PvE r bad nao QQ'. When will they listen to this idea to reward slow and rewarding gameplay rather then rush for the bullshit ideas? Who knows.

Hint: Nothing is rewarding in GW

All weapons and armor are standardized. Even if beating Sanctum Cay mission dropped a dozen ectos and 30 golds...you still gain nothing of value.

Deakon · Mar 03, 2010, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Which is precisely my point. You place an extremely high value on specific freedoms. That's a very Jeffersonian approach to the problem. Other people may look at the same situation and bring something like Mill to the table.

Guns don't kill people. They just reduce the transaction cost. But that's causal; people get killed at the margin as a result of that reduction. From the standpoint of someone killed at the margin, that cost is infinite. So from a utilitarian perspective, one life saved justifies the cost to individual liberty.

And with that, enough derailing. Feel free to post a response; you may have the last word. If you want to go further than that I'm happy to chat via PM.

OT: Yes, the core issue under debate (should farms be nerfed) spans multiple threads right now. ANet took a very specific stance early in the run of GW: solo farms => bots => easy RMT = bad. Ursan and SF were both group farms that got the axe for the same underlying reason as botting - both create an undesirable externality for the more casual player that ANet perceives to be their core audience.

(Yes, I realize that SF only partially bought the farm.)

It's obvious that some segment of the audience prefers that degenerate builds like Ursan and SF exist. What is not so clear is whether or not ANet is hurting or helping GW2 sales by nerfing such builds.

No need for a last word on my part (although this may qualify as such) because we agree on the core issue. My QQ was with the supposed solution. There will always be those that abuse the system, whether it's a game or welfare or whatever. You have to target the abusers, not the system. That said, I won't miss Ursan or SF because I never really used them. I will miss my 600 monk and Gwen's 16/16 build. Too bad I didn't abuse them to obtain copious amounts of ecto like those players that are still doing so now. Then I could enjoy the spoils while others suffer. I feel that the latest update has ended up actually encouraging the very things it was meant to discourage. I don't understand how anyone can consider that a good move on Anet's part.

Just so you know, I used to be part of "test crew" for an unnamed TSR game. I fully understand exactly how difficult it is to maintain balance with such complicated mechanics that go into games. After WotC purchased the game, they immediately retired it because it was in direct competition with a much more successful game. Not that this gives my opinion any more validation than anyone else's. I just wanted you to know that I'm not just talking out of my ass. I personally own over $7k (U.S.) worth of "modules" and "expansions" for a single dead game. Money I spent because I enjoyed playing it and was very dedicated.

I was really hoping that GW2 would be my next money pit of gaming bliss. The past year has really discouraged my hopes.

Still Number One · Mar 03, 2010, 11:19 PM // 23:19

I would say the chance of A.net ever tampering with NPC AI to the proposed extent is 0, but sometimes they can be completely unpredictable in what they are thinking.

Their is simple evidence to why I believe it is a 0% chance and that goes back to when VoD was removed from GvG. VoD was removed because instead of playing the game the way it was "intended" (this sounds familiar...) people began stalling til VoD and then took advantage of the terrible NPC AI and used skills like clumsiness, ineptitude, wandering eye, and splinter weapons to completely destroy balled up NPCs pretty much guaranteeing them a win while all they had to do the 18 minutes before that was run flags with a warrior and sit in a giant impenetrable fort.

Instead of changing the AI of the NPC's to solve the problem, A.net change the tiebreaker to lord damage, stating that because of Guild Wars 2, they do not have the appropriate support that would make the AI programming changes possible.

If they didn't have the resources to do it then, they more than likely still do not have the resources to do it now, especially on a scale as large as PvE compared to PvP.

So I think the people in favor of a change are doing nothing more than wishful thinking, and the people who are against it can probably let out a big sigh of relief.

Lycan Nibbler · Mar 03, 2010, 11:33 PM // 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

OT: Yes, the core issue under debate (should farms be nerfed) spans multiple threads right now. ANet took a very specific stance early in the run of GW: solo farms => bots => easy RMT = bad. Ursan and SF were both group farms that got the axe for the same underlying reason as botting - both create an undesirable externality for the more casual player that ANet perceives to be their core audience.

(Yes, I realize that SF only partially bought the farm.)

It's obvious that some segment of the audience prefers that degenerate builds like Ursan and SF exist. What is not so clear is whether or not ANet is hurting or helping GW2 sales by nerfing such builds.

The problem as I see it is that anet did the worst of both options as far as Ursan and SF. They either needed nerfing or they didnt (stand in whichever corner you wish) - but they needed acting on immediately Taking a year or so before actually doing a nerf leaves them open to be abused to the point they might as well just leave them.
Anet showed it is possible to react to overpowered skills just last week with seeping wound, so why couldnt they be as pro active with the other skills that were so obviously OP? Maybe that SW affected pvp?? The fact they did such a bad job of nerfing SF after all that time is another issue.

I personally enjoyed Ursan from time to time just have fun with friends rolling through UW once in a while, but it wasnt my staple build, more like a bubblegum build when I didnt want to think too much.. not sure if that makes me degenerate

. SF I only used to run my alts around.

Chthon · Mar 03, 2010, 11:51 PM // 23:51

The problem with OP's proposal is that it makes the game too hard. You forget that a-net's task is to make PvE doable for the casual player playing normally (who is paying the bills after all), while keeping the intelligent hardcore players (and their not-so-intelligent hardcore imitators) from utterly smashing through PvE with degenerate invinci-builds for farming and speed clearing. A solution that stops degenerate invinci-builds at the cost of making PvE too hard for casual players treats the disease by killing the patient.

Who are these "casual players" of whom I speak. Trying going to the next ZQuest location and joining a PUG. Then ask them to ping their builds. That Endure Pain warrior, that hybrid fire/SoS E/Rt, that caster ranger, that monk with 7 redbarups and rebirth, that Conjure Flame + AoB derv who doesn't realize his build breaks itself, that sin who runs a perma build despite 2 other melees in the team and doesn't even have Death Blossom, that entire team where not only doesn't a single W/X or X/W have SY! on their bar, but none of them even have the skill unlocked.... These are the casual players. This is why the mobs in PvE have such awful builds.

So, if OP's solution is no good, what would work? Well, if I were going to design the game from scratch (hint, hint: GW2) I'd go with total mob randomization like D2. Since that's probably off the table, I'd suggest something I'm going to call "random champions" that works something like this:

Most monsters get a "champion" variant that is the same as the normal monster, except that it has one or two extra (or changed) skills that pose a problem for invinci-builds -- interrupts, knockdowns, (preferrably non-spell) enchant strips, (preferrably non-spell) degen, PBAoE, touch skills, (preferrably non-spell) e-denial, etc.
Between 0 and 2 of each mob's monsters are randomly promoted to their champion form.

This should put a significant crimp in using invinci-builds, since you have to plan for every hoser skill on every possible champion that could appear in the mobs you'll face. At the same time, one or two monsters per mob with one or two extra skills won't increase the difficulty too much for casual players.

The-Bigz · Mar 04, 2010, 01:41 AM // 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

The problem with OP's proposal is that it makes the game too hard. You forget that a-net's task is to make PvE doable for the casual player playing normally (who is paying the bills after all), while keeping the intelligent hardcore players (and their not-so-intelligent hardcore imitators) from utterly smashing through PvE with degenerate invinci-builds for farming and speed clearing. A solution that stops degenerate invinci-builds at the cost of making PvE too hard for casual players treats the disease by killing the patient.

Who are these "casual players" of whom I speak. Trying going to the next ZQuest location and joining a PUG. Then ask them to ping their builds. That Endure Pain warrior, that hybrid fire/SoS E/Rt, that caster ranger, that monk with 7 redbarups and rebirth, that Conjure Flame + AoB derv who doesn't realize his build breaks itself, that sin who runs a perma build despite 2 other melees in the team and doesn't even have Death Blossom, that entire team where not only doesn't a single W/X or X/W have SY! on their bar, but none of them even have the skill unlocked.... These are the casual players. This is why the mobs in PvE have such awful builds.

So, if OP's solution is no good, what would work? Well, if I were going to design the game from scratch (hint, hint: GW2) I'd go with total mob randomization like D2. Since that's probably off the table, I'd suggest something I'm going to call "random champions" that works something like this:

Most monsters get a "champion" variant that is the same as the normal monster, except that it has one or two extra (or changed) skills that pose a problem for invinci-builds -- interrupts, knockdowns, (preferrably non-spell) enchant strips, (preferrably non-spell) degen, PBAoE, touch skills, (preferrably non-spell) e-denial, etc.
Between 0 and 2 of each mob's monsters are randomly promoted to their champion form.

This should put a significant crimp in using invinci-builds, since you have to plan for every hoser skill on every possible champion that could appear in the mobs you'll face. At the same time, one or two monsters per mob with one or two extra skills won't increase the difficulty too much for casual players.

Champion Mobs in every 2-3 mobs to stop farmers from farming effectively without bringing a friend along to single out these monsters and kill them. Promotes teamplay and synergy a bit. I am for it. Will it probably turn into 'GLF x/x20 to kill Champion mobs'? Most likely, but it does add another facet in.

Bryant Again · Mar 04, 2010, 02:53 AM // 02:53

Even something as simple as rotating the enemy skills could suffice. Could also make things a bit more entertaining in hm.

snaek · Mar 04, 2010, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by chthon

while keeping the intelligent hardcore players (and their not-so-intelligent hardcore imitators) from utterly smashing through PvE with degenerate invinci-builds for farming and speed clearing.

i like how you assume that people who use degenerate invinci-builds are intelligent and/or hardcore.

Chthon · Mar 04, 2010, 03:37 AM // 03:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

i like how you assume that people who use degenerate invinci-builds are intelligent and/or hardcore.

The people who create degenerate invinci-builds are intelligent. The people who use them may be merely literate.

Anyone who cares enough about GW to invest the time and effort into reading about, obtaining the skills/gear for, and using degenerate invinci-builds qualifies as "hardcore."

FireWhale · Mar 04, 2010, 05:03 AM // 05:03

The main reason charr fail is because they try to do that stupid "group up and form a defensive parameter" crap. Makes aoe'ing them that much easier. If they didn't do that, I guarantee they will be much much harder to beat.

WhiteAsIce · Mar 04, 2010, 05:45 AM // 05:45

Someone probably already mentioned this, but do keep in mind that foes are limited to skills that are Core and of that campaign. It's not easy to give a strong bar to foes in that case. You could only do that for foes in EotN, where they can have skills from any campaign, as well as monster-only skills.