Curse

Fril Estelin · Jul 20, 2009, 12:31 PM // 12:31

Hey,

One thought occured to me earlier today:

HM was introduced as a mode where monsters are more difficult to kill, in particular via faster skill cast and recharge (and skillbar improvement with elites etc.), higher attributes/health/level and keeping aggro.

It was later made easier with consumables which increase your stats, such as cast and recharge times, attributes, immunity.

1) It seems that the consumable features are the ones that were originally applied to the monsters. So, was the "redesign" of HM simply giving access to players to the features that HM monsters had by default?

2) Furthermore, what DP-removing items may show is that accumulation of DP may have been one of the biggest obstacle for progressing through HM. So did Anet simply monitor the amount of failure on players' part and provided tools for them to overcome their difficulties?

Lastly, when doing Slaver's NM, I noted how much pulling was required not to end up dead in seconds. Then I thought of the initial vision of GW, where PvE was here to prepare you to PvP, and wondered how pulling was applied in PvP. Obviously, there are the NPCs but you don't have mobs of them. Are there "luring" techniques that PvPers use to ambush players?

Sorry that it's not a consistent set of thoughts, but I'm sure it can provide the basis for an interesting discussion (I can already read Bryant Again and Abedeus

)

YunSooJin · Jul 20, 2009, 02:15 PM // 14:15

no it was just more grind so players would wait around for that mythical unicorn that farts rainbows, gw2

thetechx · Jul 20, 2009, 02:17 PM // 14:17

I use pulling in JQ and AB when necessary. It's always funny to see someone chase you into your base and get smoked by the base defenders.

And also, DP removing items where implemented before hard mode was introduced. we had Peppermint Candycanes during the first Wintersday event.

4thVariety · Jul 20, 2009, 02:42 PM // 14:42

Slaver's Exile is a strange "Elite" area. If you wipe in the Fissure, the UW, the Hall of Heores (PvE), the Deep, Urgoz' Warren and the Domain of Anguish, then it's over. Eye of the North has no such area. That is one very obvious design change.

Another massive design change were the PvE skills. They rewarded people having more time to put into their titles with even more power. Although from a pugging perspective, those players are the ones requiring that extra power the least.

I'm not a guy buying into the old legend of how "PvE is supposed to prepare you for PvP". Some PvP players might required that myth to help legitimize their higher calling, but no single PvE mission really tries to train you for PvP, not even the ones with "capture the base" modes. GW-PvP and GW-PvE might as well be two separate games. That's how it is with every fps, why should it be different for RPGs.

Crash Override · Jul 20, 2009, 03:18 PM // 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

I'm not a guy buying into the old legend of how "PvE is supposed to prepare you for PvP". Some PvP players might required that myth to help legitimize their higher calling, but no single PvE mission really tries to train you for PvP, not even the ones with "capture the base" modes. GW-PvP and GW-PvE might as well be two separate games. That's how it is with every fps, why should it be different for RPGs.

Oh come on. I agree with your statement, but you have to admit that the Desert missions in Prophecies were totally PvP-influenced. That's the first thing I thought when I played through them, and personally, they're some of the better missions in GW.

zwei2stein · Jul 20, 2009, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Hey,

One thought occured to me earlier today:

HM was introduced as a mode where monsters are more difficult to kill, in particular via faster skill cast and recharge (and skillbar improvement with elites etc.), higher attributes/health/level and keeping aggro.

It was later made easier with consumables which increase your stats, such as cast and recharge times, attributes, immunity.

1) It seems that the consumable features are the ones that were originally applied to the monsters. So, was the "redesign" of HM simply giving access to players to the features that HM monsters had by default?

2) Furthermore, what DP-removing items may show is that accumulation of DP may have been one of the biggest obstacle for progressing through HM. So did Anet simply monitor the amount of failure on players' part and provided tools for them to overcome their difficulties?

Lastly, when doing Slaver's NM, I noted how much pulling was required not to end up dead in seconds. Then I thought of the initial vision of GW, where PvE was here to prepare you to PvP, and wondered how pulling was applied in PvP. Obviously, there are the NPCs but you don't have mobs of them. Are there "luring" techniques that PvPers use to ambush players?

Sorry that it's not a consistent set of thoughts, but I'm sure it can provide the basis for an interesting discussion (I can already read Bryant Again and Abedeus

)

1) So you implay that "conset" was meant to put players on equal footing with monsters and to equalize them?

You correct - consumables basically erase HM advantages and give players tool to "outlevel" mobs. Not unlike typical MMO where players are given taste of powerfull mobs along with tools to raise to their level and "equalize" them.

We have seen similar setup used several times already (Mursaat Spectral Agony -> Imunity; Shiros Army outleveling/moster only skills -> Dragon Skills; Torment creatures -> Lightbringer title).

Notice how those were specific to challenge presented, now if conset was usable only in HM and requires some HM-time to obtain, you would be 100% correct.

Basically, armsraces. Instead of Levels, you have special buffs/antibuffs.

2) DP removing items were added to game long before HM. Mostly because DP meant little in PvE and this DP removal was nice, desirable, effect that did not cheapen game or throw it off ballance. We are talking about times when anet was actually interested in ballancing PvE and introduced likes of minion cap and AoE mob reaction.

But, after HM came, there is suddenly abundace of those items. And they are very easy to obtain: Presearing Nicholas drops lots of honeycombs and it takes about week of work to obtain stack for someone who has three accounts.

Again, you are onto something. Maybe they did see people loose vanquishes becuase of DP accumulation. Maybe they saw qq threads somewhere. Maybe they realized that HM is mostly grindy and they can as well give everyone stack of DP removers and let em grind throught areas painlessly.

It's not "allowing to overcome challenge", it is to "allow mindlessly grind through it" purely because people who were able to use skill to beat HM did it already. Motivated people who were able to patiently grind throught it even while they struggled. People who had guild to support em got it done.

That leaves casual, average players. Those people do not want to spend their X-hours gameplay time budget on failure. You need to give them goal (hm) and tool (grind consets and dp removers). Time they would spend failing and getting pissed is spent gaining consets, which is much more positive.

3) Pulling teaches patience (strike at opportune moments; let enemy team make mistake and split), harassment (if two teams stare at each other if helps to "enrage" oposition and whip em to premature action) and baiting ("overextended misbehaving warior" ... ups, nope, he just made YOU overextend)

4thVariety · Jul 20, 2009, 04:01 PM // 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crash Override

Oh come on. I agree with your statement, but you have to admit that the Desert missions in Prophecies were totally PvP-influenced. That's the first thing I thought when I played through them, and personally, they're some of the better missions in GW.

Sure, one mission has a Team Arena vibe, but collecting crystals in Elona Reach or defending a platform against attacking enemies is hardly preparing anybody for PvP. All those missions really do is use the "Ghostly Hero" asset, which is a central element of PvP, but the desert missions themselves are just plain PvE missions. Weirdly balanced ones at that. No such thing as "own yourself" PvP mode. If anything, the Glint mission layed the foundation of how future PvE missions would handle random negative conditions.

ArenaNet simply worked with everything they got to create PvE missions, even with PvP mechanics, assets and ideas.

stanzhao · Jul 20, 2009, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

Sure, one mission has a Team Arena vibe, but collecting crystals in Elona Reach or defending a platform against attacking enemies is hardly preparing anybody for PvP. All those missions really do is use the "Ghostly Hero" asset, which is a central element of PvP, but the desert missions themselves are just plain PvE missions.

i cant work out if your serious.

all the desert mission strategies are pretty much similar to those of HA. infact each mission mimics the play style of a HA map. even down to the doppledanger where you used to be taught how to overcome a player with the exact same skill bar. it probably doesnt apply so much now, as you can just take in ursan and smash his face in until you feel satisfied, but when the game was released, i'm pretty sure all the desert missions were there as a stepping stone to get you used to the HA pvp play style.

Fril Estelin · Jul 20, 2009, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thVariety

Another massive design change were the PvE skills. They rewarded people having more time to put into their titles with even more power. Although from a pugging perspective, those players are the ones requiring that extra power the least.

Good point, that reinforces my point 1) : PvE skills are like some of the "monster skills" that big bosses get to make our gaming life harder. It's a bit "artificial" because it's about numbers, yet it seems to me that it was a push from designers to mimic what they did with monsters&HM, but now to the player's benefit.

Quote:

I'm not a guy buying into the old legend of how "PvE is supposed to prepare you for PvP".

I don't want to derailt the thread (I know you don't either) but it's not a legend. Although I didn't really believed it 2 years ago when I started becoming more vocal on Guru, I now have been convinced by the PvPers on Guru. But their vision changed so much that, as you said, it's now difficult to believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

We have seen similar setup used several times already (Mursaat Spectral Agony -> Imunity; Shiros Army outleveling/moster only skills -> Dragon Skills; Torment creatures -> Lightbringer title).

Notice how those were specific to challenge presented, now if conset was usable only in HM and requires some HM-time to obtain, you would be 100% correct.

(I was waiting for your post

)
Good observation: titles have also been designed around the difficulties, thus limiting the choice and diversity. I remember vividly the EotN quests where you use the Ursan-like skills, not only for blowing doors or detecting the nornbear.

Quote:

DP removing items were added to game long before HM. Mostly because DP meant little in PvE and this DP removal was nice, desirable, effect that did not cheapen game or throw it off ballance. We are talking about times when anet was actually interested in ballancing PvE and introduced likes of minion cap and AoE mob reaction.

I stand corrected, but my comment remains: was it a reaction from Anet following an observation of how players perform? More generally, I have the feeling they monitor (or used to) that and adapt their updates accordingly.

Quote:

But, after HM came, there is suddenly abundace of those items. And they are very easy to obtain: Presearing Nicholas drops lots of honeycombs and it takes about week of work to obtain stack for someone who has three accounts.

Indeed, is it a means to give players "with average skills" the ability to survive a HM (or EotN dungeons) that they would otherwise stop attempting to do?

Quote:

Maybe they saw qq threads somewhere.

I didn't think of that, but I doubt Gaile could have monitored that alone, I suspect there's some kind of statistical tool on the server.

Quote:

It's not "allowing to overcome challenge", it is to "allow mindlessly grind through it" purely because people who were able to use skill to beat HM did it already. Motivated people who were able to patiently grind throught it even while they struggled. People who had guild to support em got it done.

That's right (I wasn't so lucky, finishing Forgewight at 60DP was painful

). I wonder whether at one point GW designers admitted to the necessity of "letting the grind into the game" and redesigning stuff around it. For GWAMMers, add more titles (with some account wide like we've seen recently), including ztitle with XTH. For farmers, speed clears. Etc.

Quote:

That leaves casual, average players. Those people do not want to spend their X-hours gameplay time budget on failure. You need to give them goal (hm) and tool (grind consets and dp removers). Time they would spend failing and getting pissed is spent gaining consets, which is much more positive.

Yep, but side-effect: farmers have super-tools, people don't learn "playing skills" anymore. Was the first one intended? And the second one an admission that the transition between PvE and PvP was as difficult as ever?

Quote:

3) Pulling teaches patience (strike at opportune moments; let enemy team make mistake and split), harassment (if two teams stare at each other if helps to "enrage" oposition and whip em to premature action) and baiting ("overextended misbehaving warior" ... ups, nope, he just made YOU overextend)

This is also what some PvPers told me on IRC#guildwarsguru (you should come if you can), about overextending. So it's like an ambush? (I haven't seen any in obs)

Archress Shayleigh · Jul 20, 2009, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Awesome observation! I agree about the stuff with teh monsters and hm.

Martin Alvito · Jul 20, 2009, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Fril, if your theory is correct then the devs forgot the first principle of game design in the age of the internet:

If you don't make it really, really hard, the community of gamers will quickly find an efficient solution through sheer volume of iterations. Players will then breeze through tasks that were intended to be difficult, get bored and leave.

Rather than create "cheats", the devs would have been better served (in the long run) to sit back and let the community deduce consistent means of overcoming difficult tasks, because it was bound to happen.

I'd advance a related theory here - ANet knew about this effect and didn't care. A large share of the gaming audience has been ruined by FAQs; they don't want to use their brains to solve problems, and want to breeze through the game without ever being challenged.

Sadly, ANet maximizes short-term revenue by pandering to that lowest common denominator. Their business model provides no incentives for customer retention, so the best way for management to get promoted is to deliver results now by dumbing down the game.

dusanyu · Jul 20, 2009, 07:40 PM // 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Then I thought of the initial vision of GW, where PvE was here to prepare you to PvP, and wondered how pulling was applied in PvP. Obviously, there are the NPCs but you don't have mobs of them. Are there "luring" techniques that PvPers use to ambush players?

The only "Pulling" or aggro awareness as PvE People may recognize it used in PvP is used on the GvG npc's known as footmenand knights. While they are not particularly powerful NPC's thy can ad added pressure for or against your team as such you want to avoid agroing your opponents footmen or allow your opponent to aggro you npc's if your monks are under pressure.

Knights are a tad bit stronger and can Ruin a good push or split. Pulling tactics are therefor used to try to only grab and dispatch one knight at a time.

englitdaudelin · Jul 20, 2009, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

*snip*

I stand corrected, but my comment remains: was it a reaction from Anet following an observation of how players perform? More generally, I have the feeling they monitor (or used to) that and adapt their updates accordingly.

Indeed, is it a means to give players "with average skills" the ability to survive a HM (or EotN dungeons) that they would otherwise stop attempting to do?

*snip*

Yep, but side-effect: farmers have super-tools, people don't learn "playing skills" anymore. Was the first one intended? And the second one an admission that the transition between PvE and PvP was as difficult as ever?

Look at question one, at the top, and at the first question at the bottom: Have the players changed behaviors, and then has A-net given them the tools to continue that behavior? Yes, and yes.

How do players perform? Well, that varies. The DP removers before EotN were individual, in the case of Wintergreen and Peppermint CCs, or group, in the form of Rainbow CCs and clovers. So, these made a nice gift for adventurers in higher-end areas, where DPs would make quite the difference in success (FoW, UW, Urgoz, etc...), or for people who struggled even with midgame content (Southern Shiverpeak Missions, Late-game Factions). However, these are...inefficient, to say the least, over long periods of time, or for large groups. It takes a lot of Clovers to wipe out 45% DP in the whole group.

However, the game was posing challenges that players were struggling to adapt to, and people were chewing through stacks of these removers. And anecdotally, we can all tell of people who really did bang their heads against failure without adapting tactics and builds, without learning the cues that the game's built in (as people point out: pulling, protting, defending, etc...). So with the penalty of Hard Mode kicking you back to your outpost, groups were going to blast through DP removers even more.

I'm sure the devs were aware of this dynamic--of people not adapting their builds--as they implememted these: they've OFTEN claimed that PvE balance is aimed at encouraging a variety of playstyles, knowing full well that THEY (the devs) need to encourage that variety; that people WILL play one build in every area, for every quest and mission.

There's another player behavior that your posts get at: The getting of loot. The farming. The buying of sparkly PvE weapon skins. Glass house disclosure: I have an expensive collection. I like rare skins and low reqs.
So despite the assurance that every max wep will do the same stuff, people go for skins. The skins create the incentive for farming, for saving money, and for exploiting AI and skill combos. This incentive to farm, and the farming that came along, altered in perhaps unexpected ways, parts of the economy. The Game Devs have tried in many cases to limit this, and to nerf both the skill, and in some cases, the behaviors of players. We can see them reacting to players in the addition of Nightmares in UW, the touch skills by Charged Blacknesses, the traps in various places, the need for multi-person farms, and so on.

YET....Devs have said publicly that farming is a legitimate playstyle. Desiring the pretty weapons, either to use or to sell, is a legitimate motive to play and to farm. And to support that playstyle, we have some of the PvE skills, which, let's face it, solve some of the problems that farmers had. They are, as you say, tools.

Whether you want to call this "not learning playing skills" is an argument up to you. Devs and farmers claim they're playing just fine. What use does sliver armor see outside of farming builds? (I know people could toss up their one build for fighting in groups that uses it...but really now.)

So the game developers, in my opinion, have been active from the start, realizing that some behaviors WOULDN'T change without interventions, and we've seen those interventions come in a number of ways: DP removers, nerfs, and even (overpowered?) skills to help players continue to enjoy a game that's arguably creaking along into geriatric territory.

Improvavel · Jul 20, 2009, 08:09 PM // 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Hey,

One thought occured to me earlier today:

HM was introduced as a mode where monsters are more difficult to kill, in particular via faster skill cast and recharge (and skillbar improvement with elites etc.), higher attributes/health/level and keeping aggro.

It was later made easier with consumables which increase your stats, such as cast and recharge times, attributes, immunity.

1) It seems that the consumable features are the ones that were originally applied to the monsters. So, was the "redesign" of HM simply giving access to players to the features that HM monsters had by default?

HM doesn't make the mobs harder to kill - get a tank in front of them, spam nukes and they are death. They are stupid as before.

HM basically GIMPS THE PLAYERS - you attack comparatively slower, cast comparatively slower, do less damage, take more damage, use your skills comparatively fewer times, etc.

Consumables and PvE skills are the bad answer for a bad implementation of challenges for veteran players.

Most RPG games are based on -> mob Z is at x level, you need to be at level x or higher and have x level or higher gear to beat them. Once you out level mob Z you go kill mob ZZ, which is higher level than mob Z.

The proper way to increase difficulty in GW was to give mobs better builds/balanced professions or improve AI.

Improving AI is hard. Better MOBs can also be annoying to make.

So, instead, they increased level of mobs and gimped players. But AI is still bad, so tank+nuke (first build to beat DoA mind you) still beats AI. Tank+nuke can be a bit boring, so Anet gave the players PvE-only skills and consumables to reach or out level mobs.

Chthon · Jul 21, 2009, 03:08 AM // 03:08

1. My feeling is that the primary goal behind consumables was to provide a goldsink. Since storage is so painfully limited, goldsinks like prestige armor have steadily been losing effectiveness. Consumables are a way to get players to flush gold down the toilet indefinitely.

Making HM more palatable to more people was probably just an afterthought.

2. Outside of missions and protect-the-NPC quests, DP is al;ways going to be the biggest obstacle to success. Assuming a wipe doesn't mean failure, the ability to kill one single monster paired with enough DP removal eventually yields success.

3. While pulling may not have a clear analog in PvP, not pulling does: overextending. I suppose the lesson pulling was supposed to teach (back when PvE design decisions were meant to teach lessons) was thinking ahead to avoid a shit-I'm-badly-outnumbered situation.

Aside from that, maybe the closest thing to pulling I've seen in PvP was a guy in RA who would taunt the other team with some pretty rude smack-talk. We made it 15 wins or so, due in no small part to the fact that he'd inevitably get someone ticked enough to charge headlong into our team without any backup for an easy kill.

Reverend Dr · Jul 21, 2009, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

The proper way to increase difficulty in GW was to give mobs better builds/balanced professions or improve AI.

The worst thing about PvE in guild wars has been the ill thought out builds run by monsters. Good builds and AI could make non-buffed level 20 mobs a good challenge, rather than having to overbuff level 28-30's to create an illusion of challenge.

konohamaru heaven · Jul 21, 2009, 04:27 AM // 04:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Lastly, when doing Slaver's NM, I noted how much pulling was required not to end up dead in seconds. Then I thought of the initial vision of GW, where PvE was here to prepare you to PvP, and wondered how pulling was applied in PvP. Obviously, there are the NPCs but you don't have mobs of them. Are there "luring" techniques that PvPers use to ambush players?

For this best way I can compare it is as trying to lure in them into pulling further than they should like when you try to see if the Opposing team will over extend themselves so that they can kill said target easier and more safely. After all like in pvp if you can lure 1-2 people into over extending or in the case of PvE a group instead of 3 you can in a more safe manner kill them rather than a larger confrontation. PvE in this manner can be like the PvP are similar only main difference is numbers 1 group of like 3-5 vs 1-2 people.

If I am wrong feel free to correct me.

trialist · Jul 21, 2009, 06:08 AM // 06:08

Anet's initial design decision: Low level cap, static weapon stats.
Ways to increase pve difficulty: Better AI and/or handicap players more.

Anet obviously chose to handicap players rather than improving AI to give a challenge. Giving monsters higher levels, better damage resistance, shorter hex durations, double damage, unfair monster only skills, <insert missed player handicaps here>, it was only natural that eventually they would have to balance out this handicap, cause unlike other mmos, GW has static weapons. While it is possible to just grind for a better weapon in other mmos to even out the power difference between monster vs player, GW has no way of doing that, your character is static and doesn't really grow in power once you are maxed and have a maxed weapon.

There is a fine thin line between something being a challenge and being just plain frustrating. Continually buffing monsters to increase difficulty would eventually lead to a point where a "challenge" becomes a "frustration" instead. Using every trick your team has and coordinating flawlessly to beat a hard boss monster is challenging. Doing the same but this time with a boss that one-hit kills you no matter what you do would just be frustrating, not challenging.

I guess the irony in anet introducing consumables and pve skills which had the effect of balancing out the power difference, is that it showed just how shallow GW's pve was. Without the unfair handicaps against the player, the AI in GW is laughable and players have proven that by just waltzing over everything once the handicaps are neutralized. I hope Anet is working on better AI in GW2, else it will just be history repeating itself again.

4thVariety · Jul 21, 2009, 06:53 AM // 06:53

The Classic MMO Fight:
Two 3D models standing in front of each other, running their battle animation with no interaction whatsoever. Numbers appear over heads, players click small icons, yet the battle is decided by an invisible Excel sheet in the background.

The Classic MMO expansion model:
More numbers, higher numbers.

The GW difference:
While numbers do play a role in GW, the emphasis is more on selection of skills and execution of your build. In GW, numbers are a constant early on, the only way to be better is to make use of the variable, which is the skills you select and how well you can play them. Other MMOs do not let you choose your build. The selection of skills is a constant in other MMOs. Their emphasis is also not on execution of skills, so the variable here are the numbers which directly influence the player's power. Hence player grind their level instead of trying to be better players.

Difficulty in GW:
Usually MMOs are easier the more you grind up the values of your character. Obstacles can be overcome with numerical advantages linked to time investments. Why time investments? Because people are charged money based on the amount of time they play.

Guild Wars tries to be difficult by forcing the player to be better at the execution of his build; rather than to rely on its inherent strength. In that regard HardMode increased the difficulty by opening the one gap the player can't close in GW: the numerical advantage of the monsters. Sure giving them better builds would have been a smarter way to increase difficulty, but it seems the AI has it's limits and only mobs in elite areas have a natural mixture of professions.

The GW Expansion model:
Even if GW chapters do not increase your level with the usual +10 model, each Chapter saw an increase in power to the skills. That lead to the numerical advantage of the monsters fade away. The "difficulty" faded away. That was countered by level design. More monsters in Factions, added envirmental effects towards the end of Nightfall. But at the very high end, most of the community countered that increased difficulty in a very unelegant, game breaking way. Do you have a permasin? Do you have a r10 Ursan? Do you have a gear/book.

What then?
Once the game can create challenges for the player, it will once again default back to its roots of players requiring to outperfom the monsters. But for that to happen, mere conset nerfs or balance changes won't suffice. PvP players are always talking about sealed deck play. But the same mode might also be a good idea for PvE. Adding more levels and introduce Superhardmode is futile, it is going to be Permasin exploited anyway.

A regular MMO has to change its variable, its numbers, so that players get challenged. GW's variable are the skills and their selection, that's what has to be changed. Changing numerical values in a game not based on numbers is nonsensical.

FoxBat · Jul 21, 2009, 07:15 AM // 07:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

The worst thing about PvE in guild wars has been the ill thought out builds run by monsters.

People keep saying this but really, eotn offered pretty good bars on most teams, given the AI limitations and the expectation that you aren't going to spend 10-15 minutes per group like you might in HA. That doesn't make normal mode slavers all that challenging even when you take away the pve skills. Unless you're going to just give them tainted, smite builds, and heavy interrupts, they aren't going to get significantly more threatening without a huge AI overhaul.