Curse

Anarkii · Dec 13, 2006, 05:29 AM // 05:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magda

nobody even bothers thinking about is the way that the Enraged skill punishes AoE damage

If all the aggro is on your tank(as it should be), taking double damage hardly matters. AoE clears out groups faster. If you do as the scribe suggested and go the individual spiking route, you'll only double the time it takes to clear out a zone.

Redfeather1975 · Dec 13, 2006, 07:16 AM // 07:16

I've played Everquest 2 and WoW for a bit before switching to Guild Wars and both game forums I found the same complaint about the endgame, specifically raid encounters.
If someone can figure out a new type of PVE endgame content that is adaptive and offers exciting replay value it will have a massive impact on MMORPGs. I reckon.
One thing to consider is we don't pay a monthly fee so any suggestion for that type of PVE endgame content has to be relatively low maintenance for the developers and easy on the badwidth.

I also wanted to add from my experience in EQ2 and WoW. That sometimes the patient route in fighting mobs is the best route. Most PUGs I've found in Guild Wars try to go for the fastest, most dangerous order, such as the healer first. That does make the fight go faster, but in my MMORPG experience, if you are not on a time limit, you are better off to break the glass cannons (squishy high dps targets) first, before going for the healer. It takes a little longer to kill the entire mob group, but it is a more safe and reliable strategy.

Makkert · Dec 13, 2006, 08:49 AM // 08:49

I have my doubts if it is possible, what you ask is a lot of the in-game AI FrogD.
But I hope it leads to something.

cheers,
Makk.

Ezekial Bain · Dec 13, 2006, 10:31 AM // 10:31

I pretty much completely agree.

I'm not a hardcore player and don't really 'do' farming but I'd say I'm fairly dedicated to GW. I've finished every Prophecies quest (inc. Titan quests and SF ones), got through Factions in a week and the main Nightfall game got done in a few weeks after launch.

I've explored most of the UW, got to the Forgemaster in FoW and so on...

But I really just don't like DoA and have no interest in playing it. As said, it's basically because the only way to succeed in it is to exploit the AI and use well-tested cookie-cutter builds.

I have the most fun playing Guild Wars when playing a mission with DYNAMIC stuff going on. Thunderhead Keep, Vizunah Square, Gyala Hatchery etc.
Sorrows Furnace was a great area, since it not only contained a ton of diverse quests but also diverse ways of fighting and was never too difficult to explore.
Tombs is semi-good, but unfortunately the Barrage/Pet build seems to have eliminated all other professions from regularly going through it.
Fissure is also fantastic... it's tough but never "silly" (a standard, well balanced, well played team can always manage) and the quests there call for a lot of differant tactics and thinking.

A nerf to DoA might solve the problem but it'd have to be QUITE the nerf.

Lord Sarevok · Dec 13, 2006, 10:13 PM // 22:13

The OP has a rather poignant article. I agree with the vast majority of it. But there are a few points to be made. AI is really difficult to do properly. You may notice that video games don't have really good AI in pretty much any scenario.

In RPGs, the difficulty slider only tends to increase the damage and hp of the monsters. They do not get smarter or do anything more intelligently. The odd time there is an increase in monsters as well but beating one and beating 10 is frequently not a hard leap. I assume that they follow this pattern due to putting in real well thought out AI is not feasible.

In DoA, the plan of action is heavily based on enemy monsters being retarded. If monsters ignored your tank and always went straight to your squishies regardless of where some imaginary bubble is. That would make things much more interesting.

Bonders are always gimmicks, SF is a gimmick. A tank with a bunch of self defense skills that is just there to abuse AI is also a gimmick. Sure gimmicks work but they tend to be rather static in what they can do and cannot do. Dynamic things would tend to break those up.

Someone pointed out that if everything was dynamic it would be like PvP to a large extent. Is that what PvE should be? Something to consider.

Age · Dec 13, 2006, 10:37 PM // 22:37

I like the idea as I don't like brute force that much all the time as well and solving a puzzle would be interesting but I would still like to be able to farm if I can.

^ Bonders aren't gimmicks.

paulscott · Dec 13, 2006, 10:52 PM // 22:52

they already have heros which can take any random skill and use it somewhat. grant AI the ability to randomly change a skill or two, if it likes it it keeps it and may drop a skill besides that one.(some extremely basic genetic AI.)

NeHoMaR · Dec 13, 2006, 10:52 PM // 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_T_bot

I think anything discussing Chapter 4 should be deleted.

Well, IMO this ideas are not for Chapter 4, because that chapter is already done I imagine. So, wait for Chapter 5.

FrogDevourer, do you PVP? I didn't read all thread but PVP is part of endgame for me, because when playing PvP with PvE characters I need capture some elites, buy some skills (or make the quest for the skill), get a weapon/armor as good as PvP ones, etc.

leguma · Dec 14, 2006, 09:09 AM // 09:09

What FrogDevourer sees and what many of the people who are arguing that DoA is simply not 'retardedly difficult' miss, is the overall trend in the design. Look at the end game areas of chapters 1, 2 and 3, notice the pattern, and project into the future.

Those who are talking about the AI need to actually stop and think for a second. The AI in GW is FINE, and the Doppleganger you need to defeat in chapter 1 is a fine example of that, as are the heros that can use the vast majority of skills without any problem. The issue is that the AI is specifically kept down, and emphasis is being placed on overpowering the players. Yes, the AI is not perfect, but could someone please explain to me why, why WHY, there are still monsters in the game that do not have 8 skills on their bars? Why does every creature NOT have a rez? WHY?

On this subject, the Backfire post earlier is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in GW PvE. You cannot argue that Backfire is a non cookie-cutter approach, when you are using it on creatures that have NO hex removal and no inteligence to tell them to stop using it untill the very last second when they would kill themselves. Backfire is a great skill, designed for a very speficic purpose, to place a monk in a situation where he can either cast, and save a teammate but potentially kill himself, or let the ally die and live to cast another day. It is NOT a skill you start off with because the mob will always simply cast right through.

As for the ballanced builds that people are reffering to, I have gone down there with an entire guild team, and builds that can take pretty much anything on in any form of PvP, including 3 way altar holding... guess what, we wiped out so bad it is not even funny. Look and see what the top guilds are running in GvG, those are ballanced builds that have both offensive and defensive, and can keep on going for a long long time, who wants to bet how long they would last in DoA.

I understand the need for the end areas to be challenging, however, the challenges in DoA simply break the rules of the game. GW is very much like chess, and it is one thing to start off with a few less pieces to make the game more interesting or challenging, but DoA is like playing chess against someone who only has 5 queens but can move 2 times every turn. Yes, in a way it could still be considered chess, but it has nothing to do with the actual game of chess, and to win such a game you would have to play it in a way that is totally unviable in regular games.

I predict that in chapter 4, monsters will have a skill called "Berserk" (Enraged x2), "Natural Resistance", and "Amulet of Protection", and the "Call to Torment"...

A_Muppet · Dec 14, 2006, 10:13 AM // 10:13

IRT original post:
I see what you're getting at, and I agree with many of the points.

I liked The Deep specifically because you fought 'generic' monsters, but the different enviromental effects, coupled with the aspects, required some inventive thinking.

As for DoA, I understand what you mean, but I understand what they were trying to do.

Right now, people just damage spike things, and tank things. They don't bother conditioning, they don't bother blocking or evading, they just bump the armour up and shrug the damage off.
...So what do you do when you fight something that can tank YOU and you can't tank? You start trying to think. One of the first things I noticed in the DoA was the damage the margonite warriors do. If a necro used Shadow of Fear and then followed up with the well of darkness at first opperutinty, that would cute their damage by about 75%. An assassin with the abilities to block and blind would be useful too. And mesmers? They would really cause bother, and nuff zed.

That being said, it's bloody boring having to exploit the ai-lure of one group, do this, do that....

The elite missions from factions had the right idea in many ways-the opening to Urgoth's warren took a very simply approach-raw numbers, and the beginning of that mission is one of my favorites.
The Deep forced inventive thinking and having adaptable builds-one of the best groups I beat that mission with used ritualists for global regen, and a beastmaster ranger let his pet die against Kanaxai himself, allowing one of the necromancers in the group to use Well of Blood, so the -8 degen was buffered easily for the rits and monks.

Of course, most people just spam heal party when they farm the groups and have a bip necro, because they won't dare risk thinking.

So, what this long winded, rambling post is basically saying, is I reckon the whole idea of the enviromental effects and the raw power of the monsters is this is the Chapter 1 team's way of saying 'There are other ways of beating missions than brute strength. Try finding them.'

Kinda like how Valve introduced dynamic weapons pricing in Counter-strike: Source. Their way of saying 'There are other guns than the desert eagle, m4, ak47 and awm. Use them.'

scrinner · Dec 14, 2006, 03:54 PM // 15:54

I see alot of people complaining about DoA Being another cookie cutter area. But me and my guild have been working on DoA near its release. We have tried many many builds including 6 man. DoA will take quite a while for cookie cutters to be released for none of the builds in the area are easy. You have to actually think out your builds and such. For me, the chance of doing it with my guild is the best aspect of the area including the ambraces and etc.

About brute forcing, i think most of the game is about brute force but when the players arrive at DoA they face a challenge. That challenge is actually think of what they do before they do it. DoA requires you to spend time on learning each area by experience and not by reading it on wiki and forums. DoA Requires some serious aggro management and forces people to think before they attack.

Its due to this however that i have seen many many people give up on DoA and you know what? Thats perfectly fine. I know people may not have the time to DoA but if you really dont have the time, Then you cant complain. Other people are scared of some non existant crap drops and think that because a few whites are non max that they are all non max.

In the end im going to say this. DoA requires much planning before it becomes easy for a player and unfortunately people resort to cookie cutter builds which may not come out

glountz · Dec 14, 2006, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Increasing Monster skillbar to 8 skill would be easy, yet it is not what we see in DoA.
A 8 slot monster skillbar gives 3 more room for rez, self heal, and evade/hex removal/condition removal. Heroes already have this, why not the monsters? And then the fights would become a lot more interesting.

Zexion · Dec 14, 2006, 05:05 PM // 17:05

Tagged for later reading. But the first 10 lines looked VERY interesting, and true!
My opinion all along. My problem is not that DoA is diffucult. My problem is the way it is diffucult. Brute Force FTL!

_Zexion

birdfoot · Dec 14, 2006, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Honestly speaking, I don't quite understand what OP was referring to as 'brute-force' but I'm guessing it's to do with making mobs 'overpowered' to the point where only certain builds become effective as a means of making the game challenging. A good example of that was DoA which most have considered far too difficult or an uncreative approach. Please correct me if I got the wrong idea.

If that's the case, I agree with what OP has said since I find it rather uncreative but I tend to disagree with the point on randomization.

Nightfall involves alot of mindless killing, it's not entirely bad but seems to be imbalanced in that most missions/quests are made of it. Nightfall missions aren't bad, but it leaves a different feeling after you've done it before. THK, for example, was a pretty good mission imo. There are plenty of different routes you can take and different ways you could win that mission; Dunes of Despair is another example for me. In those missions, I found myself not only requiring to think about character builds and team constitution, but also a series of events that will take place and how to deal with them (more than just pull and kill). I can't say much about DoA (having tried it only once) as I don't any interests in it, seeing that it's another one of those annihilation-based, loot-collecting type of area.

I strongly recommend level designs in GW to be made in such a way that every profession can fill up a role/niche. Imagine a level that has an enemy that would call forth other groups from the surrounding that if a player group can assassinate that enemy first before it is able to call for support, the level would become easier for the party later on (as they do not need to engage needless battles). Of cos, if the party decided they will just fight all the way in, they could do so with higher difficulty. Such would make Assassins less-discriminated in missions, also, perhaps the short teleport distance should be further than what it is now, being able to access mobs that are out of longbow range (if it currently isn't). Some mission bosses can have high armor so high that only degeneration becomes somewhat more efficient than weapon/elemental damage.

I feel that randomization may have some implications on the general idea of GW's gameplay. When I started playing GW, one of the things that I find really interesting about it is to know how the monsters will behave in a particular zone and when I enter that zone, I learn how to deal with them.

Randomization in Skills
Randomization in skills or monster type is going to hurt the part where it comes to 'knowing your enemies'. I think for PvP, not being able to know what your enemy can do is valid; but for PvE (considering that one cannot do skill changes while in explorable areas) will prevent any definite way of preparation. I'm not sure if knowing monsters well is part of the 'skill' that ANet was referring to, but if I feel that randomization in skills have a tendency hurt casual players by making exploring frustrating.

Randomization in Spawns
I'm only disagreeing with this if it deals with spawning random monster types. My argument would be the same for randomization in skills unless different monster types spawn with the same skill but that's going to make things worse. Actually, I also rather to have some monster group composition have only one monster type, just like trolls in Talus Chutes. It could help to appease some farmers or folks that like to grind, and also portray a sense of credibility of the world. I like the idea of having things like a cave infested by spiders, for example, which we see alot in Prophecies for trolls and ettins (a good setting for treasure-hunting). I remembered when I first started playing GW, I told my friend that I found a ice cave (back in pre-searing) that was infested with Ice Elemental.

Randomization in Group Composition
I don't exactly disagree with this but I feel that the randomization shouldn't take place for the entire mob group, i.e. there has to be some 'base' monster types.

Variety in AI
This is not any form of randomization, just classifications of AI that a monster can take up. I feel that AI should be varied between different monsters, affecting how they behave. I almost notice how all monsters will run away when they are on low health (if they are in a pack of more than 3). I actually don't mind such AI, I don't think it's bad generally but if they are the same for all monsters, then that's where I feel is a problem. Some monsters probably don't look intelligent (nor would one expect them to be), and I feel they should behave as how one would expect them to. This I believe can add more depth to GW's current monster design. I'm sure mobs can be allowed to run away, the issue here is more of whether it makes sense that all monsters should possess that intelligence to run away. Actually, I strongly suggest that likely-to-be intelligent mobs have designated mob-type (perhaps a monk) in Kournans/Corsairs/Margonites (for example) to be run away and call for support from another nearby Kournan/Corsair/Margonite group such that a party needs to be able to prevent the mob from doing so when it reaches low health.

Changes in Monster/Player Skills
I find that GW's PvE is built too much upon PvP as a foundation; such that most monsters are relying on skills that even a player uses. For monster abilities, I'm always wondering why they can't have a passive ability. For example, a spider's attack is always poisonous, a party needs to be prepared for conditions whne dealing with them. This is just an example, what I'm trying to imply here is that monsters should have abilities which leaves a lasting impression on players, requiring the latter to have certain abilities when dealing with them and not entirely depending on skills that players also uses. PvE can take a step further from PvP (Which is currently fine) on players and monsters in that skills can be made for RPG specifics (and these skills cannot be used for PvPing). Aggro management is also something that is missing in PvE. Although this is quite unneccessary for PvP, aggro management can add another level of depth to PvE gameplay. ANet should really consider some system that allow 'officially-declared tanks' to be equipped with aggro management skills and performing their jobs as tanks. These skills can be something that does not require a skill slot in the 8-skillslot bar but an external skill that cannot be repeatedly used (need to have some appropriate cooldowns or energy consumption). The way with which mob can switch target can also follow along the lines of amount of damage dealt and healed. For example, casters can usually cause higher amount of damage compared to tanks (or any player that attempts to spike with a chain), when a character has done subsequent damages (in a period of time) that amounts to a heavy damage, a mob switches target to that character to attempt taking it out first. Likewise for a healer which repeatedly heals a mob's target, a mob can decide to switch to that healer. When all these target-switching occurs, a tank should make use of aggro management to help draw mobs' attention or use skills like "Fall Back!" to help keep targeted party members safe.

All in all, I doubt randomization is really the key to making endgame better. Randomization does provide some unexpected variety but if implemented wrongly, could cause some frustration in GW's gameplay (especially to casual or not so skilled players). I would rather instead of ANet implementing only elite missions/areas, that they make the path of missions/quests not bring you to every single mission spot or outposts and those areas drop special items to further the incentives of exploration. Also, to complement collector rewards, I rather monsters be restricted to certain areas as in Prophecies; one always knows where a certain monster can be found. I would consider variety to be more of a key to making GW better in endgame; different things to be done and different ways in which something can be achieved. In addition to variety, more creative (thought-oriented) level designs.

Sorry about the messy post, I'vejust typed whatever that comes to mind. :P

P.S. For level designs, I've not seen much suggestions in the suggestion forum (perhaps they are outdated). Perhaps if we do a mix and match of what GW currently offers (so that we don't stray too far from what may be a limitation for the devs), we may be able to suggest new varieties with which missions/quests can be laid out. Actually, ANet should hold a level design contest.

Deleet · Dec 14, 2006, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Birdfoot,

Please no more PvE-only skills, that will only force even more splitting in the already splitted community.

Also, I think you're right about that the monsters need more Inate abilities, like natural poison, interupt and the like.

If you didn't already, read my post on page 2, about AI in pve vs. pvp.

birdfoot · Dec 14, 2006, 08:18 PM // 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

Birdfoot,

Please no more PvE-only skills, that will only force even more splitting in the already splitted community.

Also, I think you're right about that the monsters need more Inate abilities, like natural poison, interupt and the like.

If you didn't already, read my post on page 2, about AI in pve vs. pvp.

EDIT: I edited my post cos I wasn't too sure I got you point on the split thingy. :P

I hope to see a time where GW can do well in both PvE and PvP with some distinction in the skills used. Skills that are released with GW on a chapter basis should always be there as they serve for both PvE and PvP players but there could be some additional skills made for PvE only (or if PvP players are unhappy, PvP only skills too and might interest more folks into PvP). On top of that, I was also suggesting a non-8-skillslot-bar external skills which serve a more general purpose, in my example, for aggro management purposes. Overall, PvE and PvP gameplay scenarios can be quite different from each other, hence, I feel that making either too similar to each other is limiting the possibilities at either side.

Actually, I've not PvPed for awhile but I do notice that the PvP character creation seems to be entirely different. I've also heard someone saying in the forum that PvE and PvP are now separated. Not entirely sure what this means, but is it that a PvE character can no longer PvP? Or PvP players can't unlock skills in PvE anymore? Not trying to be funny here, I actually didn't know what changes took place in one of those updates. I hope it's neither that I've guessed, if not I will feel it's a bad move done by ANet.

Lastly, I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you meant. I'm implying that more additional skills added for PvE-specific on top of the usual release (like Lightbringer's Gaze for example), not actually meaning a set of skills made for PvE and PvP specifically for each release. This means that for all chapters, players will still use PvP skills (the common skills) just as it is now (I don't think that should be changed).

P.S. I went and take a look at your post. AI is a hard thing to do, I'm not sure if making a mob group performing based on enemy builds will make it even harder for both devs and casual players alike. Actually, I feel that there's no need for ANet to try and make AI as smart as a real player, as long as the AI behavior is varied for different monsters and within expectations. I'd also rather PvE AI to not try mimic PvP.

unienaule · Dec 14, 2006, 09:18 PM // 21:18

One possible part of a solution:
Ok, so ANet had a contest where people design weapons. Why not a contest where people design monster skill sets? I don't mean they just design one, but come up with some monster team ideas for skill groups, so they aren't quite so worthless as they are now.

As has been said before, heroes own face, except for their inability to use BiP, and if we just gave monsters more skills and a secondary to ALL of them and not just Jungle Trolls, they'd be a lot more interesting.

One other thought for the "randomization" would be that you could have a basic set of skills for say, an axe warrior, and then have a few that are either X or Y or Z, and it picks them from a short list of skills that work in that build.

Antheus · Dec 14, 2006, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by unienaule

One possible part of a solution:
Ok, so ANet had a contest where people design weapons. Why not a contest where people design monster skill sets? I don't mean they just design one, but come up with some monster team ideas for skill groups, so they aren't quite so worthless as they are now.

Because 95% of players lose to heroway (or so the pvp reports would suggest)

Now imagine all of PvE consisting of balanced enemy groups, with healing, rezzing, hex and condition removal, interrupts, spikes, e-denial, pressure, protection, etc.

Look at Shiro. He has one skill which is moderately annoying (and can be completely and 99% negated) and people go berserk at that mission paying 30-50k just to be ran through (ok, so I take the money, sue me).

There's a reason why mobs only use 5 skills, and why they have so limited skillsets. They would be too hard otherwise.

DoA is nice. Limited skillsets, dumb AI, various exploits. And still it seems just about nobody can do it. Now imagine actually smart mobs, which put pressure on monk, blindbot on warriors and interrupters on casters, while ranger's pet goes after your MM, while their MMs build up their army.

It's not a pretty sight.

But the worst thing is: Develop such sofisticated AI, and on the first day, a foolproof build will apear that will exploit a glitch in one of their ranger's use of interrupts to kill the entire group (or something similar).

PvE is dumb. Has to be, or it doesn't work.

Bowman Artemis · Dec 14, 2006, 10:04 PM // 22:04

A few posts I've seen so far are disappointing, something like the following:

Whinge whinge cookie cutter build whinge moan groan brute force whinge. Groan groan nerf moan AoE and tanking whinge sucks moan don't like cookie cutter builds whinge cry sob etc.

The majority though have very good points. The problem is, cookie cutter builds will happen, no matter what. The great thing is:

Noone is forcing you to use cookie cutter builds. Why are they so popular, you might ask me? Because everyone is lazy. They see something that works (might not be the fastest or most fun) and they don't bother to be creative any more.

AoE and Tanking aren't the only way to do it. If you don't like it that anet chose the brute force approach, make it challenging for yourselves by running unusual team builds.

Refuse to run cookie cutters even. Maybe this approach was taken for a reason? At any one time, there might be 1000-2000 people doing DoA (just a guess). There will definitely be thousands doing standard quests and exploring, there will be trades going on and there will be people in missions. There will be people running UW and Fissure, people will be earning faction in different areas, guild ranks will be changing, people will be picking up drops and salvaging and crafting and dying and rezzing and levelling and running and aggroing and AoEing and hexing and degenning and wanding and using special items and getting drunk and working on titles and creating characters and farming and creating new characters. All of these things have to be computed by the servers and the effects of them need to be sent to the people that are doing the things. Maybe "better" or "smarter" AI (not to mention random things like sentry mines and such) would put too big of a strain on the system? Would you prefer better AI but 500% more lag?