Curse

Daesu · May 23, 2009, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo Smile

Because only assasins can farm, I get ya...

No, but assassins have, arguably, the most or one of the most versatile farming options right now. Just look at the number of viable SF farming builds out there and the vast number of farming spots an SF assassin can farm.

Lishy · May 23, 2009, 01:04 AM // 01:04

.....This thread is full of trolling and of stupid....
Just quit GW if you hate it so much. It's not a perfect game and nothing is going to change the fact. But it's still there for the huge majority who enjoy it.

Gun Pierson · May 23, 2009, 01:24 AM // 01:24

@Bryant: I see you have the avatar of the Kommando Nob

Just want to say that DoW2 'pvp' is way more fun than GW pvp will ever be, even if it isn't well balanced yet. I had the game for one day and was already downloading replays of TS +30. GW pvp is too dull and doesn't require the same type of skill.

There is one class in GW that requires some skill imo which is monk. I don't see a turret ranger or a warrior chasing monks as really skillfull play. Timing a spike or fake spike requires some coordination (counting secs in the head), but the monks on the other team will save the day or not. Hence you often hear that good monks are rare to find in this game.

GW PvP in short: kill monks = win game. I watched Sabre Wolf's shoutcast (the final between KMD vs DP) and you see it there too. The best thing about the whole match was the shoutcast.

PvP Elitists, cyou in DoW2 or Starcracft2 if you dare

As for Anet's view on fun... never mind.

I like to add that this game was a real fresh wind in the gaming industry when it was released and it's worth every penny. But like Aapo pointed out, it's mostly a pve game with a large pve playerbase, even if they wanted it and made it to be a pvp game.

Zahr Dalsk · May 23, 2009, 01:25 AM // 01:25

You know what was fun? Spirit forests.

Give 'em back, anet.

Also, LOL DOW2 COMPETITIVE. DCPro or SSPro would be a far better choice, due to, you know. Balance.

Avarre · May 23, 2009, 01:30 AM // 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Fz

.....This thread is full of trolling and of stupid....
Just quit GW if you hate it so much. It's not a perfect game and nothing is going to change the fact. But it's still there for the huge majority who enjoy it.

People comment because they care about the game and would like to see improvements. Don't say silly stuff like this.

Gun Pierson · May 23, 2009, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Also, LOL DOW2 COMPETITIVE. DCPro or SSPro would be a far better choice, due to, you know. Balance.

The game is only released recently, give it some time. Even Blizzard games like SC and WC3 were not balanced when they hit the shelves. It's part of the process.

Daesu · May 23, 2009, 02:31 AM // 02:31

netrek pvp anyone?

....gimmeitam

Bryant Again · May 23, 2009, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

@Bryant: I see you have the avatar of the Kommando Nob

Yeah Orks in general are fun to use but the units scale like shit. Their whole army needs a review. Given how long it took them to finally balance DoW1 (i.e. never), things ain't looking to bright. I haven't played DoW2 for a long time since RA abuse is everywhere now, too imbalanced and crappy. I'd just play it for kicks and giggles, but I'm honestly getting more of that out of DoW1 sadly. Dawn of War 2 has thus far been a huge let down for me.

Balancing in general, though, is a total bitch to do. Not even Capcom is able to "completely" balance things with Street Fighter. Even moreso in MMO's and strategy games, where you have *soooooooooooo* many variables to keep track of that it's not even funny. ANet was able to keep up with what they originally had, but they added too much and now look what we have.

And no, this just isn't in regards to PvP, either. Player vs. Environment balancing is just as vital as any competitive format. The only difference is that the computer doesn't complain or speak up when something is OP. The other problem is figuring out when it *is* balanced, and that's where the hard part starts.

What more developers need to do is keep it simple. This is something Anet has acknowledged (and something I hope they stick to) in regards to GW2 and something Blizz may be onto in SC2 (i.e. only still sticking with the three races).

Hm. Just noticed a little something:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

I'm not saying MMO PvP is impossible, just very unexpected.

Eh? You're gonna have to go a bit more into such a synopsis because that's why so many got hyped about WoW in the first place: killing the opposing faction. In other words, it wasn't just expected, it was highly and insanely demanded.

LONGA · May 23, 2009, 04:30 AM // 04:30

For me PvE Balance that I need is to get rid of 25% activation time reduction.This is what really kill ranger and mesmer in hardmode.

upier · May 23, 2009, 08:08 AM // 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

People comment because they care about the game and would like to see improvements. Don't say silly stuff like this.

Or just god mode for everyone!
*thumbs up*

But seriously, I do not understand the guys how they can in one moment decide that Castigation Siggy is broken with a 15 sec recharge in PvE and NEEDS a longer one - yet at the same time +20 damage in SoH is good for the game.
It's completely obvious why many players throw the mothers of hissy fits when something gets fixed (as in nerfed). Because A.Net is actually teaching us that there is nothing wrong if something is insanely overpowered. I really don't see how they can think that giving us god mode and then taking it away will not piss off an insane number of people.

enter_the_zone · May 23, 2009, 12:56 PM // 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrettM

Poor, conflicted ANet.

Solution to problem 1: Make SF slower! Add a 50% movement speed penalty, like Obsidian Flesh. Then sins can perma SF without being able to clear popular farms at great speed, relieving ANet's discomfort.

(Of course, this would also remove the "fun" as the players see it, which is clearing popular farms at great speed.)

I can't wait to see what comes out of the new fun philosophy. If you're going to buff SoH for this reason, why not throw in some buffs to Judge's Insight, Balthazar's Aura and Spirit, and other monk buffs? Then throw some love to the rits by buffing weapon spells, and maybe give eles the ability to cast armor enchantments on other players. Let ranger pet shouts affect the whole party, while you're at it.

Now THAT would be fun! A true god-mode that only works if you have a mess of supporting players with you casting and shouting buffs. PuG, anyone?

It was called Ursanway, and sure enough there was bitching about that too.

pinguinius · May 23, 2009, 02:04 PM // 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain Fz

.....This thread is full of trolling and of stupid....

This.

Here's a scenario for you whiners: ANet nerfs SF into unmaintainability. Some pugs and some runs temporarily cease while guilds figure out what's the new most efficient way to do said areas. Eventually someone posts it on PvXwiki and everyone starts copying the new builds.

And your preferred class (especially if you're an assassin now) is still useless in pve. Something will always be the best, pugs will always run it, and your class will likely not be a part of it (unless you're a monk).

As for people soloing, who cares? If they want to hoard e-gold, let them. It's not like their newly-found assassin-induced shininess will somehow make them more powerful.

Burst Cancel · May 23, 2009, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eragon Zarroc

are you a fun hater?! O_o

I am a fun hater.

PvE "balancing" should focus more on adjusting monster builds and AI to deal with idiotic player tactics that would never work against real people. If this had been Anet's original strategy, they would never have had to resort to monsters with superpowered stats, 50% faster everything, and effectively unlimited energy. Any computer opponent already has the greatest advantage of all: omniscience. The CPU can not only read player inputs, but knows the state of every single variable in the game simultaneously. "Teams" of monsters are in fact a single entity controlled with perfect micro; the CPU doesn't have to worry about communication or coordination, the way a human team would.

Make the computer use those advantages. Give all monster teams monks that can actually heal and pre-prot effectively (after all, the computer knows what the players are targetting). Fill areas with spike teams that have literally uninfusable spikes. Have monsters spread out preemptively (you know, the way players do) so AoE is never effective on its own. Give monster teams more shutdown and interrupts (that never miss).

There's also no reason why monsters should stay the same over time; change their builds to counter what players run. The appropriate response to SF farming is to put touch/signet skills on the monsters ... or just have them ignore/run from the player. There is absolutely no reason monsters should be balling around a player that they can't actually damage - the same goes for any kind of AoE farming build, really. Instead of nerfing Ursan, they could have had monsters run lots of armor-ignoring damage and edenial; alternatively, shut down the HB backline with interrupts, sig of hum, enchantment removal, etc.

The point is, monsters should be credible opponents, not just glorified pinatas with buffed stats.

FengShuiDove · May 23, 2009, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Make the computer use those advantages. Give all monster teams monks that can actually heal and pre-prot effectively (after all, the computer knows what the players are targetting). Fill areas with spike teams that have literally uninfusable spikes. Have monsters spread out preemptively (you know, the way players do) so AoE is never effective on its own. Give monster teams more shutdown and interrupts (that never miss).

You don't play much, do you? Let's consider the following: a balanced 8 player PvE mob vs. a balanced 8 man PvE team. The PvE team has two choices: pressure or spike, essentially. Pressure is basically negated in that the computer will prioritize pressuring skills and shut them down with 100% clarity. Plus, a mob vs. pressure setup will take the time of a PvP match to wear down the AI's energy, health, and break down positioning, and fifty 10 minute showdowns when going through a dungeon is not very fun. Spike is out, because if they see the target, they can pre-prot and nullify any anti-prots like Rend or Gaze of Contempt through perfectly timed interrupts and literally instant reaction so that even if an anti-prot lands, another prot has replaced it before a human can hit the spike. Even a fake spike won't matter. If it takes .3 seconds for a human team to switch targets and respike, it only takes .25 seconds for a Spirit Bond from the AI which reacts perfectly to the target swap.

Interrupts that never miss, uninfusable spikes? Um, they already have that. I got hit for a Lightning Orb for 678 damage the other day. From full health, with max armor and all of the best runes you can buy, it was instant death. Though this was due to overstatting monsters, the principle is the same. Unstoppable beatdowns are no fun. Since there's no clue who a spike would land on, and since the computer could perfectly time a spike, as in, perfectly, there's no way to stop this. That's not fun at all, it's just suicide every time you zone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

There's also no reason why monsters should stay the same over time; change their builds to counter what players run. The appropriate response to SF farming is to put touch/signet skills on the monsters ... or just have them ignore/run from the player. There is absolutely no reason monsters should be balling around a player that they can't actually damage - the same goes for any kind of AoE farming build, really. Instead of nerfing Ursan, they could have had monsters run lots of armor-ignoring damage and edenial; alternatively, shut down the HB backline with interrupts, sig of hum, enchantment removal, etc.

The point is, monsters should be credible opponents, not just glorified pinatas with buffed stats.

This I agree with. Dynamic monsters and regular stats with better team composition would take more strategy and skill to overcome.

In general, I really hope you were kidding about the first half of your post.

Skyy High · May 23, 2009, 10:41 PM // 22:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

Ritus have Splinter, AR, and a few resto options to fill up the remaining skill-slots on that bar.
Paras have the Imba build.

Monks have a useful Healing LINE, Protection LINE and now the Smiting LINE is getting buffed. It's a bit different when the whole class offers just enough skills to make a bar - compared to being able to create a bar out of every line.
That's not fun.

Leadership, Command, and Spear Mastery are all excellent attributes. The paragon is a warrior-matching DPS machine with party support capabilities. The only reason other para builds look so bad is because the imbagon is so damn good. Sin attack chains don't really suck, they just look pretty crappy against DB+MS or SF builds in PvE.

Avarre · May 24, 2009, 03:10 AM // 03:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by FengShuiDove

Plus, a mob vs. pressure setup will take the time of a PvP match to wear down the AI's energy, health, and break down positioning, and fifty 10 minute showdowns when going through a dungeon is not very fun.

No, but a ridiculous 10v1 final boss fight with Impossible Odds sure is!

The idea has merit. You wouldn't have full balanced group for every encounter, just some mobs that have a bit of synergy and decent skillbars. I would completely prefer a pvp-esque even battle over the pveskill final battles that have been par for the course.

Burst Cancel · May 24, 2009, 06:37 AM // 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by FengShuiDove

In general, I really hope you were kidding about the first half of your post.

I was half-kidding; or, more to the point, I simply outlined the ultimate conclusion of the overall concept.

The point is, you want your monsters to play real builds with player-like ability. Monster groups with 6 units of the same class just don't make any sense in the mechanics framework of GW. Heck, the majority of monsters having only a single profession and fewer than 8 skills doesn't make any sense. It's particularly curious when you consider the emphasis on PvP as the "endgame" of GW - if that's really the case, why doesn't PvE play anything like PvP? Why don't monsters play and react in ways that would actually make sense? PvE tactics like pulling, tank-n-spank, etc. should never have worked in the first place. Creating a Hard Mode where monsters are just obscenely strong and fast completely misses the point of GW.

You actually took my idea further in your rebuttal than I had originally suggested. It's not necessary (or desirable, for reasons that you stated) that every enemy team exploit every advantage simultaneously. There are some things that monsters should never do (e.g., ball up in AoE), but stuff like 100% interrupting or perfect spiking can be sprinkled throughout various monster teams - and be mutually exclusive characteristics. Spike teams are still just spike teams - the fact that they have an uninfusable spike still doesn't make them unstoppable, because you just have to prevent one or two of the monsters from being able to spike on time. Balanced teams would be hard to kill, sure - but you know exactly what build they're running before you enter the area; being able to build against them with perfect foresight is a big advantage even if the CPU's reaction speed and targetting is superior to yours. The time issue can be solved by lowering monster density substantially, increasing aggro radius to sight range (like players), and increasing drop rates/quality.

Naturally, the AI can also be adjusted on a sliding scale based on difficulty. In normal mode, add a built-in skill-use delay to simulate decision-making. Have the computer randomly miss 50% of its interrupts against skills with 3/4s activation times or faster. Warrior monsters can screw up their attack skill combo once in a while. Monks heal or prot the wrong target 15% of the time, or prot late 50% of the time. Use your imagination.

The Stone Summit teams in Slaver's and the Charr teams in the Homelands are already a step in the right direction - the units have better builds than 90% of GW monsters, the teams tend to have monks and fast-cast hard res, they tend to have shutdown, hex pressure, etc. The AI is still dumb as bricks, but just changing the builds was enough to place those guys among the hardest PvE enemies in the game. If the AI was altered just to prevent tanking and nuking from working, I think that would be enough to get players to re-think how they approach the game.

Mesmer in Need · May 24, 2009, 07:20 AM // 07:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

No, but assassins have, arguably, the most or one of the most versatile farming options right now. Just look at the number of viable SF farming builds out there and the vast number of farming spots an SF assassin can farm.

One overpowered skill =/= versatility.

upier · May 24, 2009, 08:10 AM // 08:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

Leadership, Command, and Spear Mastery are all excellent attributes. The paragon is a warrior-matching DPS machine with party support capabilities. The only reason other para builds look so bad is because the imbagon is so damn good.

With the newly buffed SoH - do you really want to give up 25 extra damage per hit by taking a ranged swordsman? Even with the Imba being to good for anything else to measure up - the guy is losing out.

Longasc · May 24, 2009, 10:00 AM // 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Yeah Orks in general are fun to use but the units scale like shit. Their whole Eh? You're gonna have to go a bit more into such a synopsis because that's why so many got hyped about WoW in the first place: killing the opposing faction. In other words, it wasn't just expected, it was highly and insanely demanded.

I think this is the point, Bryant.

People always want PvP. They ask for PvP. Better PvP. Meaningful PvP. But there must be PvP.

It just never worked out so far. And it often is problematic for all other kinds of MMO interaction. Plus, people like to kill but not so much to get killed while doing something else.

See what happens in WoW, WORLD PVP is even frowned upon on PvP servers. Who bothers with it, it is sometimes even considered bad style to annoy others while questing.

In fact people hate PvP - case in point, Stranglethorn Vale: The design of the area makes sure you have to compete with your own faction for drops and mobs and even more so with the opponent faction. People hated the zone for the danger. How comes, I thought harder PvE mobs and PvP are fun.
It ended with organized mass pvp in battlegrounds, before that Hillsbrad Foothills became the inofficial pvp zone.

PvP complaints by carebears ended in separating Ultima Online in two "facets", a PvE and a PvP part. Must I tell you which part was almost entirely deserted and empty?
Guild Wars is similar. The more organized the PvP mode is, the less people play it.

Even EVE as a supposedly very harsh pvp game where you can lose virtual goods has serious restrictions. Free pvp is only possible in systems with a certain lower security rating so that NPC police does not interfere or in corporation wars.

And now take a look where the bulk of the population resides. The inner part of the galaxy is the safe zone where players are protected:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2944/...ace2005oct.jpg
October 2005
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/950...ace2009mar.jpg
March 2009

I am no longer playing EVE, the 2009 pic was taken by a friend.

In Guild Wars we have two games sharing the same skillset, the PvP modes and PvE.
There are differences in the PvP modes as well, Hero Battles and CM/AB are vastly different and more accessible than HA or GvG.

ArenaNet did not really support PvP. It needs more than just skill balances to thrive. All new content was fed to PvE.
GW2 seems to pick up the AB/CM concepts of GW:Factions that seem to reach more people than GvG.

It all depends what people GW want to be. There were not too many people who really loved the GvG + Fantasy MMO aspect of the game.
In this regard ANet totally failed, they are lucky that GW still attracted enough players for a multitude of reasons.
Many just wanted a fee free WoW, and some even embrace the concept of grind. Some like the graphics. Some really thought this is a roleplaying game with a great community.

Maybe Mount & Blade's expansion will be my kind of medieval setting PvP on horseback.
The best system so far was still DAOC, it created a mix of undisturbed pve world and pvp that did not feel as disconnected as battlegrounds or arenas.

@aapo: you summed it up nicely. I just hope that MMO design gets away from the constant progression through items and levels model, it has some serious drawbacks. It might also explain why ANet gives a shit about making pve skills overpowering without end, while it is actually very destructive for a game that does not has us progressing endlessly and without limits. We grow stronger, while the mobs don't. This does not make PvE more entertaining, there needs to be a modicum of challenge and fight for the fun.